S. Muthan and Others vs Srinivasan Servai and Others

V. Ramaswami, J.—The defendants are the appellants. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession and

mesne profits. The suit was decreed for injunction on the finding that the plaintiffs are in possession against which A.S. No. 895 of 1978 has been

filed. The suit properties are covered by inam title deed Nos. 2491, 2492, 2494, 2497 and 4479. The properties are part of Athanur village in

Thirumayam taluk. These lands were notified and taken over under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,

1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) with effect from 23rd August, 1965. Thereafter, the plaintiffs claimed ryotwari patta and their claim was

conceded by the Assistant Settlement Officer and a ryotwari patta was issued on 4th May, 1972.

Some of the defendants preferred an appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer to the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Pudukottai, in

I.T.C.M.A. No. 15 of 1975. That appeal was dismissed on 7th September, 1976. S.T.A. No. 287 of 1978 has been filed before the Special

Appellate Tribunal u/s 30 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963. It may, however, be mentioned that in the grounds of appeal, a wrong provision of law

has been quoted as if the appeal has been filed u/s 46(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, which is not applicable to the instant case. But that makes

no difference since an appeal is provided u/s 30 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963.

Though at one time there was a dispute as to whether the notification and taking over of the estate was under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 as a

minor inam land or whether it was notified and taken over as a Pudukottai Inam under Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, there is no dispute now that

the notification was under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963. In fact, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer specifically stated that the inam lands

were notified u/s 1(5) read with proviso (1) to Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of Act 30 of 1963, end that the ryotwari patta was granted to the

persons mentioned in the schedule therein who are the plaintiffs in the suit u/s 8(1) read with Section 11 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963. The

appeal against this order was also preferred to the Inams Abolition Tribunal, Pudukottai, u/s 11(3) of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963.

The main question that arises for consideration in both the appeals therefore is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a ryotwari patta. u/s 8(1) of

the Act, every person who is lawfully entitled to the kudiwaram in an inam land immediately before the appointed day whether such person is an

inamdar or not shall with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of that land. Section 8(2) is not applicable to

the instant case.

Before the Assistant Settlement Officers, the first plaintiff was examined as a witness and he deposed relating to the purchase of the land under

Exs. A-l to A-4 in 3965 by the plaintiffs. The Karnam of the village who was examined corroborated the evidence of the said P.W.1. There was

no objection from any other person. Though the Tribunal held that the appeals were hopelessly out of time and therefore barred by limitation, it

also went into the merits and held that the defendants had not produced any documents in support of their case and that, therefore, there are no

grounds to interfere with the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer.

The only ground on which the learned Counsel for the appellants wants to question the grant of patta was that u/s 38(3) of Act 30 of 1963,

there is a prohibition on the Inamdar selling, mortgaging, leasing or otherwise assigning or alienating any of the immovable properties on or after the

appointed date and that if there was any such transaction, it shall be void and inoperative, and shall not confer or take away any right whatever on

or from any party to the transaction. But this is a prohibition only against an Inamdar. We find from the sale deed in this case that the property was

sold by one Ramaswami Chettiar, son of Vairavan Chettiar and the document recites that the title of the vendor is vested in a sale deed dated 28th

September, 1961 executed by a private limited company by name Messrs. Chettinad Company (P) Ltd., which is a company incorporated under

the Companies Act. This document was long prior to the notification under Act 30 of 1963, and therefore, this cannot be a transaction which will

be hit by Section 38(3). The plaintiffs should therefore be deemed to have title to the property and entitled to a ryotwari patta u/s 8(1). Therefore,

there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Tribunal. If the plaintiff has established title to the

property as also entitlement to ryotwari patta u/s 8(1), there could be no doubt that the claim of the defendants in the suit has no basis. In fact a

Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party in Subramania Gurukkal v. Arulmighu Thirumaleswarasami deity, A.S. No. 556 of

1980, dated 20th March, 1984 held that the grant of patta under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 would be binding on the civil court and the validity

of which could not be questioned, except as provided under the Act. In the circumstances, therefore, the appeal also is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, both the appeal and the S.T.A. are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both.