http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: CHINNAMUTHU GOUNDER AND ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: P.A.S. PERUMAL CHETTIAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/02/1970

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1197            1970 SCR  (3) 704  1970 SCC  (1) 451

ACT:      Madras  Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (Mad. 25  of 1955),  ss. 3(2)(d) and 6A--Scope of.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent, who was the occupancy ryot of  an  inam village,  filed  a  suit for eviction of  his  lessees,  the appellants  (who  were  the cultivating  tenants),  and  for possession  of  the land.  The appellants set  up  occupancy rights in themselves as a defence.  The lower courts and the High  Court  found that the appellants wilfully  denied  the title of the respondent. and decreed the suit.     On  the question of the jurisdiction of the civil  court to try the suit,     HELD  :  Under s. 6A of the Madras  Cultivating  Tenants Protection Act, 1955, the civil court is bound to transfer a suit  for possession to the Revenue Divisional Officer  only if  the  defendant proves that he is  a  cultivating  tenant entitled  to  the  benefits under the Act, that  is,  if  he prove,-, the existence of both the conditions, namely :  (a) that he is a cultivating tenant, and (b) that he is entitled to the benefits under the Act., Under s. 3(2)(d) of the Act, however, a tenant cannot claim the benefits under the Act if he wilfully denies the title of the landlord.  Therefore, as the appellants became disentitled to the benefits under  the Act, the civil court was competent to try the suit. [706  D- F]     The   fact that the civil court has to decide  initially some questions within    the  jurisdiction  of  the  Revenue Court does not affect the interpretation of s. 6A. [706 F-G]      V. Kuppuswami & Ors. v. Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam at  Thiruvidakkazhi by its Trustees Kanakasabhai Pillai  and Muthuramalinga   Chettiar  &  Ors.  (1958)  1  M.L.J.   208, approved.      M.  S.  Ramachandra Sastrigal  v.  Kuppuswami  Vanniar, [1961] 1 M.L.J. 335, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 11 16 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 346 of 1961.      S. Mohan, Kumaramangalam and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants (in all the appeals).      D.  Narsaraju,  G.  Narasimham  and  K.  Jayaram,   for respondent (in all the appeals). 705      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      Grover,  J. These three appeals by special leave  arise out of three suits filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his  title to the lands described in the schedules  attached to the plaints and for possession of those lands as also for arrears of rent and for mesne profits.  The suit lands  -are situate  in  an inam village which is an estate  within  the meaning  of the Madras Estates Land Act (Act 1 of  1908)  as originally  enacted.  The plaintiff claimed that he and  his predecessors  in title were ryots under the inamdars of  the village  and that the defendants were lessees and were  only under-tenants.   The  defence  of  the  defendants  who  are appellants  before  us  was  that  the  plaintiff  and   his predecessor  in  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.      The trial court, the lower appellate court and the High Court have negatived the contentions of the appellants.   It has  been  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 the occupancy  tenant and  that the defendants were mere cultivating tenants.   In order  to determine the point which has been pressed  before us it is unnecessary to state other facts.      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 the Madras Cultivating Tenants  Protection Act  1955  (Act  XXV of 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  such  person.   According  to  the provisions  of s. 3 no cultivating tenant shall  be  evicted from the 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 sub,sec. (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 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 reproduced : L8SupCI/70-15 706                   S. 6 "No civil court shall, except to  the               extent   specified  in  section   3(3),   have               jurisdiction  in respect of any  matter  which               the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered by               or  under  this Act to determine  and  no  in-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             junction  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."                   S. 6A "If in any suit before any Court for               possession  of, or injunction in relation  to,               any  land,  it  is  proved  by  affidavit   or               otherwise that the defendant is a  cultivating               tenant  entitled to the benefits of this  Act,               the Court shall not proceed with the trial  of               the   suit  but  shall  transfer  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 applicant." 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 of 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 consistent 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  jurisdiction  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 Sabramaniaswami   Devasthanam  at  Tiruvidakkazhi   by   its Trustees  Kanakasabhai Pillai and Muthuramalinga Chettiar  & Others(’) 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 (1) (1958) 1 M. L. J. 208. (2) (1961)1 M. L.J. 335. 707 emphasised.  It was said that s. 6-A would become applicable if the defendant is a cultivating tenant 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 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 competent in the civil court which had complete jurisdiction

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

to dispose of the same.      The  appeals fail and are dismissed but in view of  the entire  circumstances there will be no order as to costs  in this court. V.P.S.                  Appeals dismissed. 708