AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandra Iyer, J.—The plaintiff is the petitioner in this civil revision petition which challenges the order of the lower Court returning the
plaint for presentation to the proper Court The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of some padugai lands of an extent of seven mash
situate in the whole inam village of Sivapuram in Tanjore Dt. The suit property was originally leased out by the petitioner to one Sarangapani
Iyengar who raised plantain crops and sold the trees to the respondent. A suit was fled for recovery of possession from Sarangapani the
respondent herein was imploded in that suit as the second defendant. The former remained ex Prate but the latter raised a contention that the land
was riot land and that he had acquired occupancy rights therein. That litigation came up to this Court and the decision of this Court is reported in
Sivapuram Sri Sivagurunathaswami Koil and Another Vs. Sarangapani Ayyangar and Another, This Court held that the second defendant was only
a purchaser of the crops on the land and could not claim any right to the land itself and directed the lower Court to re-entertain the plaint and
dispose of the matter A decree followed a giant the second defendant to that suit Viz, respondent Possession was delivered by the present
respondent on 24th April 1946. Curiously enough in or about three weeks thereafter the then trustee of the petitioner devastanam purported to
grant an oral lease of the very same land to the respondent on 14th May 1946. No comment is necessary as to how well this trustee served the
institution by that act and the learned Subordinate Judge has put it rather mildly when he says that the trustee did not act in the best interests of the
trust in leasing out the property again to the respondent The respondent however acted in the way in which he could be expected to do He
defaulted in payment of rent and would not deliver possession of the land to the lesser on the expiry of the lease The petitioner thereupon filed the
present suit for recovery of possession with past and future manse profits The old defense was again set up The respondent stated that the
property was situate in a whole inam village which is an estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act 1 of 1908, that the property leased out
to him was ryoti land and that he had acquired occupancy rights therein by reason of the oral lease which the erring trustee granted in his favour
The learned District Munsif held that the land is situate in an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act and that the land being
padugai should be held to be ryoti land and that therefore the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned District Munsif
however gave findings on other issues in the case which but for his finding on the question of jurisdiction would have meant a decree in favour of
the plaintiff. In the result the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court- The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The learned
Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal agreed with the learned District Munsif, and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has come forward with
this civil revision petition There is no doubt that the land is what is familiarly known in the Districts of Tiruchirapalli and Tanjore as padugai land
Padugai lands mean lands on the lower level bank breadth of the river between the edge of the sandy stream bed and the high flood level bank.
The river Carver rises from Coors mountain flows through the districts of Salem Combater Tiruchirapalli and Tanjore. The river splits itself into
numerous branches and covers the whole of the Tanjore delta One of such rivers retains the name of Causerie. On either side of the rivers there
are high banks generally called high level banks normally the water runs between the high level banks on either side. In some seasons of the year
the river brings with it rich alluvial mud. As there are no rocks on the river bed in the Tanjore Dt. and in some portions of the Tiruchirapalli Dt. the
current of the river is not torrential and it sometimes happens that by the side of the high flood level bank as the water passes the silt gets deposited
adjacent to the flood level bank In course of time this deposit forms into land adjacent to the high flood level bank and thus forms into what is
styled as a low flood level bank. The formation of such lands makes the water in the river run beyond them, that is over the sandy bed These lands
formed as they are by the gradual deposit of the alluvial and gets hardened by being exposed to the Sun end are really accretions to the bund. It
may so happen that in certain seasons when the river it in floods, those lands get submerged under water. As stated in the Tanjore Gazetteer at
page 100.
the class of dry land not found in many between the beds of the river and the embankments built to prevent them from overflowing. These are
annually submerged for some days by silt-laden water and are consequently very fertile. Plantains are generally grown on them and more rarely
tobacco and bamboos.
It may be noticed from the above description of padugai lands that they are mere accretions to the bund of the river In Secretary of State v.
Baghunatha Thathachanar 38 Mad. 108. the question arose whether as between the Government and the invader the padugai land belonged to the
inamdar. The learned Judges held that these lands could not be treated as part of the river bed so as to vest its title in the Government. In that case
it was not necessary to decide whether those lands were ryoti lands or not In S. 3 (16) of the Estates Land Act 1 of 1908 ryoti land is defined
as cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include beds and bunds of tanks and of supply drainage, surplus irrigation
channels.
If padugai lands formed part of the river bund the river being admittedly an irrigation channel for the district it would not be ryoti land. In
Sivapuram Sri Sivagurunathaswami Koil and Another Vs. Sarangapani Ayyangar and Another, . Chandraekhara Aiyar J held that even though
padugai land may not be part of the river bed it may be part of the river bank in which case also as in the case of river bed lands it would not come
within the definition of ryoti land. The learned Subordinate Judge has declined to follow this observation of the learned Judge though that decision
was given between the same parties as in the present litigation, on the ground that it is mere obiter dicta AS stated earlier the decision in Secretary
of State v. Raghunatha Thatachariar 38 Mad. 108. did not decide the question as to whether padugai land was ryoti land or not The only decision
available is that of the Sivapuram case where Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. made the observation already referred to and which the learned
Subordinate Judge did not follow The learned Subordinate Judge should have followed this obiter dicta particularly when there is no other decision
on the subject I respectfully follow the observations of Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. as stating the law on the subject. As stated already padugai land is
formed by the formation of the alluvial deposit on the river bed and which very often gets submerged when the river is in floods It cannot therefore
be taken as ryoti land. By way of analogy reference may be made to the tank bed lands which though cultivated are never held to be ryoti lands It
is true that in a number of villages padugai lands are treated as ryoti lands but that is by reason of custom or prescription. The tenant would have no
occupancy rights in respect of such lands except where he has acquired such rights by reason of custom grant or prescription. But those
considerations would not apply to lands in the present case as the defendant was holding the lands under a terminable lease for one year. I am
therefore of the opinion that the lower Courts went wrong in holding that the suit lands are ryoti lands. The suit is maintainable in a civil Court as the
tenancy is a terminable one. The civil revision is therefore allowed and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to pass a decree against the
defendant The petitioner will be entitled to his costs throughout.