Dismissed

Chinnamuthu Gounder and Ors. etc. v. P. a. S. Perumal Chettiar

Supreme Court16 Feb 19701970 INSC 22 · [1970] 3 S.C.R. 7041970 INSC 22

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Occupancy ryot sued his lessees for possession; defendants claimed protection as cultivating tenants. Held that under s.6A transfer is required only if defendant proves he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the Act's benefits; wilful denial of landlord's title disentitled them, so civil court could try the suit. Appeals dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Chinnamuthu Gounder and Ors. etc. versus P. a. S… — Landlord and Tenant | Supreme Court (1970)

¶1

704

¶2

¶3

C::HINNAMUTHU GOUNDER AND ORS. ETC.

¶4

¶5

¶6

P. A. S. P.EltUMAL CHETrIAR

¶7

F e/Jru•ry Hi, 1 '70

¶8

[J.c.SHAH,K.s.HEGllEAm>A.N.GllOVER,JJ.]	I
_Madras Cultivating Tenants -,,..tectionAct(Mad,_25_of_1955),ss. 3(2)(Ii)and6A-Scopeof.
The respondent, whowastheoccupancyryot ofaninamvillage,filed a suit for eviction ofhislessees,the appellants (who were the cultivating tenants) , and for possession of the land. The appellants setu,occupancy rightsinthemselvesasa defence. Thelowercourtsand the HighCourt 'found that the appellantswilfullydeniedthetitle of the respondent. and decreed the suit. Onthe question of the jurisdiction ofthecivilceurttotrythesuit, HELD : Unders.6A_of_the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, the civil courtisiounll te transfer a suit for possession_to_the Revenue DivisionalOfficeronly ifthedefendant proves thatheisa culti· vating tenant entitled_to_theltenefitsunder the Act, thatis,if he proves the existence of both the conllitioas, namely : (a) that heisacultivatin1 tenant,and(b) thatheiseatitlell tethellenefitsunller the Act. Under s.3(2)(d)of the Act,however,a tenant cannot claim thellenefitsunder the Act ifhewilfullydenies the title of the landlord. Therefore,as!Ao appellants became disentitledtothellenefitsunller the Act, the civil court wascompetenttotry thesuit.[706D-F]	C o E
The fact that thecivilcourthas_to_decideinitially some questions wi!hinthe jurisdiction of the Revenue Courtdoesnotaft'eotthe interpre- tation ofs.6A.[706F-G]
V. Kuppuswami&:Ors, v. Sri Subramaniaswami Devuthanam at Thiruvidakkazhi_bv_its Trustets K<nakasabhai Pillai and Muthuramalinga Chettiar&:Ors.(1958) I M.L.J.208,approved. _M.S._Rama~handra_Sastrigal_v.Kuppuswami Vanniar,[1961]I M.L.J. 335,referrci;tto.	F
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION:Civil Appeals Nos. 1116 to 1118 of 1966. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 2, 1965 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeals Nos. 299, 335 and 346of1961.	G
S._Mchan.Kumaramangalam_and_R.Gopalakrishnan,_for the appellants(inall the appeals).	H
_D.Narsaraju,G.Narosimham_and_K.Jayaram,_for respondent (inallthe appeals) .

¶9

CHINNAMUTHU v. PERUMAL (Grover, J.)

¶10

705

¶11

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶12

Grover, J. These three appeals by special leave arise out of three suits filed by the plaintiff for declaration of hi~ title to the lands described in the schedules attached to the plaints and for possession of those lands as aso for. arreas of ret and for. mese :a profits. The suit lands are situate m an mam village whicll 1s an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land .f>.ct (Act 1 of 1908) as originally enacted. The plaintiff claimU that he and his predecessors in title were ryots under the inaadars of the village and that the defendants were lessees aa.d were only under-tenants. The defence of the defendants who are appellants before us was that the plaintiff and his predecessor in c title were land-holders and not ryots and that the defendants had occupancy rights by long possession and by virtue of the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

¶13

The trial court, the lower appellate court and the High Court have negatived the contentions of the appellants. It has been D concurrently found that the plaintiff and his predecessors were ryots under the inamdar and that the appellants were only undertenants under leases granted by the predecessors in title of the plaintiff. In other words it has been held that the plaintiff is !he occupancy tenant and that the defendants were mere cultivating tenants. In order to determine the point which has been E pressed before us it is unnecessary to state other facts.

¶14

The sole question on which arguments have been addressed is whether the civil court had jurisdiction to decree the suit in respect of possession in the presence of the provisions of tl1e Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955 (Act XXV of F 1955) hereinafter called the Act. Section 2(a) defines "cultivating tenant" to mean a person who carries on personal cultivation on any land under a tenancy agreement and includes any person who continues in possession after the determination of the tenancy agreement as also the heirs of su~h person. According to the provisions of s. 3 no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from the G holding at the instance of the landlord whether in execution of a · decree or order of a court or otherwise; but that is subject to subsec. (2) which contains the various contingencies in which the tenant cannot claim the protection of the Act. Clause ( d) which appears in the exceptions reads "who has wilfully denied the title of the landlord to the land". According to Explanation I H a denial of the landlord's title under the bone fide mistake of fact is not wilful within the meaning of the aforesaid clause. Sections 6 and 6-A are material for our purpose and may be reoroduced : LllupCl/70-15

¶15

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶16

[1970] 3 S.C.R.

¶17

706

¶18

S. 6 "No civil court shall, except to the extent specified in section 3 ( 3), have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which t.he Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."

¶19

S. 6A ''If in any suit before any Court for possession of, or injunction~ relation to, any land, .it is proyed,by affidavit or otherwise that the defendant 1s a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of this Act, the Court shall not proceed with the trial of the suit but shall transfe~ it to the Divisional Officer who shall thereupon deal with and dispose of it as though it were an application under this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such an application and the apolicant."

¶20

The clear import of s. 6A is that in any suit before any civil court for possession if the defendant proves not only that he is a. cultivating tenant but· also that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act the civil court is bound to transfer it to the Revenue Divisional Officer and cannot proceed to try and dispose it oi itself. In the present case it has been found by the High Court as also by the trial court that the appellants had wilfully denied the title of the respondent who is the landlord. They thus become disentitled to the benefits under the Act. Consequently the civil court had jurisdiction to proceed with the trial and there was no question of its transferring the suit to the Revenue Divisional Officer. There has been a consisl:nt course of decisions of the Madras High Court that in order to attract the applicability of s. 6-A both the conditions must co-exist, namely, the defendant must be a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act and he should be entitled to the benefits of the Act. If both these conditions are not satisfied no question of any transfer under s. 6-A will arise. The civil court may have to determine, for the purpose ·Of coming to the conclusion, whether a suit has to be transferred under s. 6-A, certain questions which are within the .iurisdiction of the revenue court under the Act. But that cannot affect the interpretation of the words "cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act". In V. Kuppuswami & Others v. Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam at Tiruvidakkazhi by its Truslees Kanak!13abhai Pillai and Muthurama/inga Chettiar & Others(¹ ) this view was clearly expressed by the Madras High Court. In a later Bench decision in M. S. Ramachandra Sastrigal v. Kuppuswami Vanniar(² ) the existence of a third condition was also <I) (1958) I M. M. L. J. 208. 12) (1961) I M. L.J. 335.

¶21

<I) (1958) I M. M. L. J. 208.

CH!NNAMUTHU v. PERUMAL (Grover, /.)

¶31

707

¶32

A emphasised. It was said that s. 6-A would become applicable if the defendant is a cultivating tenal!t and is entitled to the benefits of the Act and further he must show that on a transfer of the proceedings to the Revenue Divisional Officer he would be in a position to obtain one or the other statutory reliefs provided for in his favour under the Act. It is unnecessary, in the present

¶33

B case, to deal with the third requirement mentioned in the judgment of ·the division bench. The appellant have been clearly found to have wilfully denied the title of the landlord. That disentitled them· to the benefits of the Act by virtue of the provisions contained in s. 3(2)(d). The trial of the suit was thus C?mpetent in the civil court which had complete jurisdiction . to

¶34

c dispose of the same.

¶35

The appeals fail and are dismissed but in view of the entire circumstances there will be no order as to costs in this court.

¶36

V.P.S.

¶37

Appeals dismissed.

Chinnamuthu Gounder and Ors. etc. v. P. a. S. Perumal Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Chinnamuthu Gounder and Ors. etc. v. P. a. S. Perumal Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khushal Khemgar Shah & Ors. versus Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla and Anr.

Rustom Cavasjee Cooper versus Union of India

M. D. Shukla & Ors. versus State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Alote Estate & Anr. versus R. B. Seth Hiralal Kalyanmal & Ors.

Delhi Transport Undertaking versus Balbir Saran Goel

Gopi Krishna Kanoria versus Draupadi Sahaya & Ors.