Case: Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam Vs. K. Gopalaswami Aiyangar

2. The appellant, Sri Athmanathaswams Devasthanam, of Avidayarkoli in Tanjore District, represented by hereditary trustee Subrahmanya Pandra Sannadhi Atheena Karthar of Thiruvavaduthurai Atheenam, hereinafter called the Devasthanam, is the landholder of three villages. It sued the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,415-8-6 as damages for use and occupation of the lands in suits for faslis 1357 to 1360 at Rs. 3-9-0 per acre per annum. The respondent was let into possession of the land by a previous trustee of the Devasthanam in August 1944 when he was being pressed by the State authorities for reclaiming the land and putting it to cultivation in connection with the Grow More Food Campaign launched by the Government of the country during World War II. The total land in all the three villages let out to the respondent was about 727 acres. The plaintiff contended, inter alia, that the lands in suit were private iruvaram lands and not ryoti lands, that the transaction by which the respondent was let into possession was not binding on the present trustee inasmuch as it had not been entered into after obtaining the permission of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under S. 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (II of 1927) and that therefore the respondent was a trespasser. The respondent on the other hand, contended that the suit lands were ryoti lands, that in view of his being let into possession by the previous trustee he acquired the status of a ryot under S. 3 (15) of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908) and also acquired permanent rights of occupancy under S. 6 of the said Act, that the transaction by which he was let into possession did not amount to an alienation and did not come within the purview of S. 76 of the Endowments Act. He further contended that he was not in arrears of rent, that he had paid rents up to falsil 1356 and there was a real understanding that the realisation of rent would be waived so long as the Government waived its right to water cess and that the Government having waived water cess till the end of fasli 1360, he was not liable to pay any rent till the end of the fasli year. It was also contended that the suit lands being ryoti, and the defendant being ryoti, the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court.3. Both the trial Court and the High Court have found that the suit lands are ryoti lands. They differed about the nature of the transaction by which the respondent was let into possession. The trial court held it to be an alienation by way of a permanent lease and so invalid in view of absence of consent of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The High Court, on the other hand, held that the transaction did not amount to an alienation of trust-property, that no sanction of the Board was necessary and that therefore the letting of the land to the respondent was valid. Disagreeing with the trial court, the High Court, also found that the suit could be instituted only in the Revenue Court and that the Civil Court had not jurisdiction to entertain it. The High Court therefore set aside the decree which the trail Court had passed and ordered the return of the plaint to the plaintiff-appellant for presentation to the proper Court. The High Court further dismissed the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff-appellant with respect to the trial Courts allowing credit of a payment of Rs. 1,000/- towards rent or damages due from the defendant-respondent. It is against this order that the appellant has filed the present appeal.

Court's reasoning:
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.