Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Thangayya Vanniar vs Ramaswamy (Minor) Represented By His ... on 23 November, 1967 cites

Veluchami Naicker And Ors. vs M. Mouna Gurusami Naicker (Deceased) ... on 21 August, 1957

6. The first decision is Veluchami Naicker v. Mouna Guruswami Naicker . That decision concerned with a suit instituted in 1954 before coming into force of the Act in question for possession of the lands from the tenants. The question that came up for consideration was whether to such a suit the bar of sections 6 or 6-A would apply. While holding that the bar of Section 6 or Section 6-A would apply, the learned Judges remanded the suit to the file of the trial Court for the purpose of deciding whether the tenants in that case were cultivating tenants or not since the said question was not decided in the view that the Act did not apply to the suit. In the course of the judgment the learned Judges observed at page 629 as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Krishna Kambar vs Muthiah Thevar on 9 September, 1965

As pointed out already, the only two decisions which refer to the meaning of this expression, as a cultivating tenant being entitled to some benefit or other under the Act, are the decision of Natesan, J., in Krishna Kambar v. Muthiah Thevar , and the decision of Anantanarayanan, J., (as he then was) in S.A. No. 562 of 1959. The learned Judge (Kailasam, J.), has not held that before transferring the suit, the civil Court must conduct an enquiry and find out whether the protection which the cultivating tenant claims, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the particular case, is available to him or not. No doubt, in view of the expression "entitled to the benefits of the Act" occurring in the section, the Court must be satisfied that the cultivating tenant is entitled to some benefit or other under the Act. Otherwise, the Very object of barring the jurisdiction the of civil Court will be defeated. The purpose of barring the jurisdiction of the civil Court is that the matter sought to be agitated before the civil Court has to be agitated before the special forum created for the purpose. If the cultivating tenant is not entitled to some benefit or other under the Act, then there will be no object in transferring the proceedings to the Revenue Divisional Officer. On the other hand, to adopt the consideration that before transferring the suit the civil Court must conduct an enquiry and arrive at a finding as to whether the cultivating tenant is entitled to the protection against eviction, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, will lead to an anomalous situation. Let us take this very case. Here, the ground on which possession was sought to be obtained was that the appellant had denied the title of the landlord and therefore he was not entitled to remain in possession. Let us assume that the civil Court gives a finding that the tenant is a cultivating tenant and then it also goes into the matter whether he has really denied the title of the landlord or not. If it comes to the conclusion that he has denied the title of the landlord, then according to the interpretation contended for on behalf of the landlords, the suit for possession must be decreed. On the other hand, if it came to the conclusion that the tenant has not denied the title of the landlord, then the civil Court must transfer the proceedings to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who will have to deal with the matter afresh. That is, before the matter goes to the Revenue Divisional Officer there is already a finding by the civil Court that the tenant has not denied the title of the landlord. To hold, under such circumstances, that the suit must be transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer and he will have to go into the question again, without being in any way bound by the finding of the civil Court that the tenant has not denied the title of the landlord, will lead to an anomalous situation, which could not have been intended by the legislature. Consequently, the only reasonable construction of the section, in my view, appears to be that as soon as the civil Court finds that the tenant is a cultivating tenant coming within the scope of the Act, and also eligible to apply for and obtain one or more of the benefits provided in his favour by the Act, the requirement of the expression will be satisfied. It is not a condition precedent for the exercise of the power of transfer by the civil Court, that the civil Court must actually conduct an enquiry and determine the very point or issue that requires to be determined by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the expression " entitled to the benefits of the Act" has reference to the eligibility of the tenant to come within the scope of the Act and claim one or more of the benefits conferred on him by the Act and has no reference to the particular set of circumstances and facts which had been urged by the landlord, as taking away the protection available to the tenant from eviction.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

V. Kuppuswami And Ors. vs Sri Subramaniaswami Devastahanam By ... on 21 January, 1958

8. Thus it will be seen that this judgment of Natesan, J., follows up the decision of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in Kuppuswami v. Subramaniaswami Devasthanam (1950) 1 M.L.J. 208, and the decision of Anantanarayanan, J., (as he then was) in the unreported decision in Second Appeal No. 562 of 1959 and fully supports the contention of Mr. T.R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

G. Venkatachala Odayar vs Ramachandra Odayar And Anr. on 8 November, 1960

First of all, it seems to be very doubtful whether the learned Subordinate Judge had really any jurisdiction to decide this question, once he found that the appellant was a cultivating tenant entitled to the protection of the Act. It is true, as observed by the learned Counsel for the Temple, that the bar of the jurisdiction of the civil Court, embodied in Section 6 of the Act, is not an absolute bar. As pointed out by a Bench of this Court in Venkatachala Odayar v. Ramachandra Odayar it is not the Revenue Divisional Officer who has jurisdiction to grant the relief to the landlord in the matter of recovery of arrears; it is the civil Court which will be the proper forum in that respect. But, indisputably, upon the very wording of Section 6, the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to consider whether a cultivating tenant should be evicted from his holding or not, and whether possession should be delivered of the land to the landlord. Once this question comes into the subject-matter of litigation, and to that extent, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is specifically taken away, and the Revenue Divisional Officer alone would have jurisdiction.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Mahalakshmi Ammal vs V. Swaminatha Iyer And Ors. on 23 September, 1965

9. On the other hand, Mr. Balasubramaniam strongly relied upon the decision of Kailasam, J., in Mahalakshmi Ammal v. Swaminatha Iyer . In that case the learned District Munsif found that the fourth defendant was a cultivating tenant within the meaning of Section 2 of Madras Act XXV of 1955 but that he was not entitled to the benefits of the said Act, and therefore the suit for eviction was barred under Section 6 of the Act, as only the Revenue Divisional Officer was empowered to deal with and determine the question of eviction. That view of the trial Court was affirmed by the appellate Court. It is under those circumstances that the landlord preferred the second appeal and the learned Judge allowed the same.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Syed Sahib vs Angamuthu Mooppan on 20 December, 1957

As the learned Judges themselves observed, these three conditions flow from the language of Section 6-A and therefore there cannot be any dispute with regard to the necessity of these three conditions being satisfied cumulatively, so as to enable the civil Court to transfer the suit to the Revenue Court. The point I wish to mention is that even this decision does not indicate what exactly is the scope of the expression "entitled to the benefits of this Act'' occuring in Section 6-A of the Act, Mr. Balasubramanian invited my attention to a portion of the judgment where the learned Judges had dealt with the decisions of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in Syed Sahib v. Angamuthu Moopan , and Subbaratnam Iyer v. Pattavarthi Moopan , and held that the view taken by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., was not correct. ' But that has no bearing on the point in issue. In those cases Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., had taken the view that the civil Court must arrive at a prima facie finding whether the tenant was a cultivating tenant or not and if the prima facie finding was that the tenant was a cultivating tenant, the suit must be transferred to the Revenue Court. The learned Judges have pointed out that that view is not correct and have observed at page 341.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Subbaratnam Iyer vs Pattavarthi Moopan on 6 January, 1958

As the learned Judges themselves observed, these three conditions flow from the language of Section 6-A and therefore there cannot be any dispute with regard to the necessity of these three conditions being satisfied cumulatively, so as to enable the civil Court to transfer the suit to the Revenue Court. The point I wish to mention is that even this decision does not indicate what exactly is the scope of the expression "entitled to the benefits of this Act'' occuring in Section 6-A of the Act, Mr. Balasubramanian invited my attention to a portion of the judgment where the learned Judges had dealt with the decisions of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in Syed Sahib v. Angamuthu Moopan , and Subbaratnam Iyer v. Pattavarthi Moopan , and held that the view taken by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., was not correct. ' But that has no bearing on the point in issue. In those cases Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., had taken the view that the civil Court must arrive at a prima facie finding whether the tenant was a cultivating tenant or not and if the prima facie finding was that the tenant was a cultivating tenant, the suit must be transferred to the Revenue Court. The learned Judges have pointed out that that view is not correct and have observed at page 341.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1