Case: Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam Vs. K. Gopalaswami Aiyangar

letter to Pandarasannidhi about this matter. The demand sent to me by the Revenue Inspector in 1950 is Exhibit B-21. That related to rent due by me for kudikani lands in my possession. I did not pay it but I entered into correspondence with the Revenue Divisional Officer. But nothing more was heard about it."These statements too do not make out that the respondent disclaimed liability to pay rent. Whenever he refused to pay rent it was for reasons other than absence of a liability to pay rent.9. There is ample material on the record to show that the respondent was liable to pay rent for the land given to him for cultivation. Exhibit A-3 is the order of the Pandarasannidhi for granting patta to the respondent of the land belonging to Avadiyarkoil Temple. The very first term mentioned in this order is that the application, i.e., the respondent, must pay cash rent at such rates as may be determined by the Pandarasannidhi.10. We therefore do not see any force in the contention that the respondent is not a ryot as defined in the Act.11. The next contention for the appellant is that the lease of the land in favour of the respondent is invalid in view of the provisions of S. 76 of the Endowments Act as the Board had not sanctioned the lease. Sub-section (1) of S. 76 reads:"76 (1) No exchange, sale or mortgage and no lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to any math or temple shall be valid or operative unless it is necessary or beneficial to the math or temple and is sanctioned by the Board in the case of maths and excepted temple and by the committee in the case of other temples."The order for the grant of patta to the respondent did not fix any period for which it was granted. It is urged for the appellant that the lease must be taken to be for a period exceeding 5 years, as in pursuance of the provisions of S. 6(1) of the Act, the respondent secured permanent right of occupancy in his holding. Such permanent right of occupancy is not conferred on the appellant on account of the term fixed in the lease. Such right is conferred by the Act on any person who is admitted by a landholder to the possession ryoti land. The mere admission of a ryot to the possession of ryoti land by the landholder give that ryot the permanent right of occupancy in view of the statutory provisions of S. 6. If the Pandarasannidhi had only admitted the respondent to the ryoti land for a period less than five years, even then the resuit would have been that the respondent, would have acquired a permanent right of occurpancy in this holding. We are of opinion that the mere fact that S. 6 of the Act confers such a right on a person admitted to a ryoti land does not make the letting of the land to such a person equivalent to the grant of a lease to him for a term exceeding 5 years, and as such requiring the previous sanction of the Board. If it be held otherwise the result would be that either the Pandarasannidhi will have on obtain the sanction of the Board for every proposed letting of land of whatever area or not to exercise his ordinary duties of letting the land as a trustee. The provisions of S. 76 could not have been intended to put such a restriction on the exercise of his ordinary rights by the Paridarasannidhi. It is too much to expect that the combined effect of S. 76 of the Endowments Act and S. 6 of the Estates Land Act is that there be no more letting of land belonging to a temple by the Pandarasannidhi. We hold that the letting of the land to the respondent did not amount to the leasing of the land to him for a term exceeding 5 years and that therefore required no sanction of the Board and that the letting of the load to the respondent is valid and good in law.12. The respondent being a ryot, a suit for the recovery of rent and ejectment is not cognizable by a Civil Court, in view of the provision of S. 189 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of S. 189 reads :189 (1). A District Collector or Collector hearing suits or applications of the nature specified in Parts A and B of the Schedule and the Board of Revenue or the District Collector exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction therefrom shall hear and determine such suits or applications or exercise such jurisdiction as a Revenue Court.No Civil Court in the exercise of his original jurisdiction shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which such suit or application might be brought or made." Suits by a landholder to recover arrears of rent and to eject a ryot are triable by a Collector, vide entries at serial Nos. 3 and 11, Part A of the Schedule to the Act. Such suits cannot be taken cognizance of by a Civil Court in view of second paragraph of S. 189 (1) The High Court is right in holding that the revenue Court alone has the jurisdiction over the suit and therefore in ordering the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court."13. The last point urged is that when the civil court had no jurisdiction over the suit, the High Court could not have dealt with the cross-objection filed by the appellant with respect to the adjustment of certain amount paid by the respondent. This contention is correct. When the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It was not alleged by the appellant in its plaint or at any stage of the proceedings in the trial court that part of the land in suit consisted of beds of tanks and therefore did not come with in the definition of ryoti land. We do not consider it fair to allow this fresh contention, relating to a question of fact to be raised at this stage, even thought in some of the records of rights certain land is described asobservation seems to be a general observation and not in connection with the land in suit. The land in suit was sought to be brought under cultivation in connection with the Growmore Food Campaign and this must have been as the land in suit could be brought under cultivation without any undue expenditure of money and labour. The expenditure on reclaiming the land might have been more than the usual expenses in view of the fact that most of the labour had to be imported from outside and as tractors had to be used on account of the large size of the land to be reclaimed within as short a time as possible. It is not event shown that the reclamation of land has not been profitable financially. We are therefore of the opinion that the Courts below have rightly held the land in suit to be cultivablecontention is not factually correct. The respondent made no such definite statement in either the written statement or in his evidence which would indicate that he completely disowned his liability to pay rent. We have been referred to certain statements in the written statement. They only show that there was some dispute about the rate of rent to be paid and not about the liability tostatements too do not make out that the respondent disclaimed liability to pay rent. Whenever he refused to pay rent it was for reasons other than absence of a liability to pay rent.9. There is ample material on the record to show that the respondent was liable to pay rent for the land given to him for cultivation. Exhibit A-3 is the order of the Pandarasannidhi for granting patta to the respondent of the land belonging to Avadiyarkoil Temple. The very first term mentioned in this order is that the application, i.e., the respondent, must pay cash rent at such rates as may be determined by the Pandarasannidhi.10. We therefore do not see any force in the contention that the respondent is not a ryot as defined in thehold that the letting of the land to the respondent did not amount to the leasing of the land to him for a term exceeding 5 years and that therefore required no sanction of the Board and that the letting of the load to the respondent is valid and good inby a landholder to recover arrears of rent and to eject a ryot are triable by a Collector, vide entries at serial Nos. 3 and 11, Part A of the Schedule to the Act. Such suits cannot be taken cognizance of by a Civil Court in view of second paragraph of S. 189 (1) The High Court is right in holding that the revenue Court alone has the jurisdiction over the suit and therefore in ordering the return of the plaint for presentation to the propercontention is correct. When the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint.