Skip to content


Subbaratnam Iyer Vs. Pattavarthi Moopan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1958)2MLJ184
AppellantSubbaratnam Iyer
RespondentPattavarthi Moopan
Excerpt:
- - i have held in a similar case that a civil court when transferring a suit like this is only required to satisfy itself prima facie that the defendant is a cultivating tenant and that it need not give a finding that he is really a cultivating tenant......pattavarthi moopan to the revenue court under section 6-a of act xiv of 1956, acting on a prima facie presumption that the respondent, who was originally cultivating the land, would be a 'cultivating tenant'.2. i have perused the record and heard learned counsel on both sides. mr. k. section desikan, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the respondent was only a waramdar, akin to a mattu-varamdar, and would not be a 'cultivating tenant', and that the lower court erred in holding him to be a cultivating tenant. i cannot agree. the lower court never held the respondent to be a cultivating tenant. it merely presumed from the evidence on record, that the respondent might turn out to be a cultivating tenant, and that is all that section 6-a requires for entitling or.....
Judgment:

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. This is a petition by one Subbaratnam Ayyar for revising and setting aside the order of the District Munsif of Karur, in LA. No. 991 of 1956, in Original Suit No. 158 of 1955, transferring the suit filed by the petitioner for an injunction against the respondent Pattavarthi Moopan to the revenue Court under Section 6-A of Act XIV of 1956, acting on a prima facie presumption that the respondent, who was originally cultivating the land, would be a 'cultivating tenant'.

2. I have perused the record and heard learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. K. Section Desikan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the respondent was only a waramdar, akin to a mattu-varamdar, and would not be a 'cultivating tenant', and that the lower Court erred in holding him to be a cultivating tenant. I cannot agree. The lower Court never held the respondent to be a cultivating tenant. It merely presumed from the evidence on record, that the respondent might turn out to be a cultivating tenant, and that is all that Section 6-A requires for entitling or requiring a civil Court to transfer a suit to the revenue Court where the question whether the person claiming to be a cultivating tenant was really a cultivating tenant would be gone into in full and finally decided, and a binding finding given thereon. I have held in a similar case that a Civil Court when transferring a suit like this is only required to satisfy itself prima facie that the defendant is a cultivating tenant and that it need not give a finding that he is really a cultivating tenant. Indeed, it has no jurisdiction to give such a final finding, as only a revenue Court can give it, It follows also that the revenue Court cannot escape its responsibility of going into the question fully and giving a finding as to whether the defendant is or is not a cultivating tenant. It cannot adopt the prima facie conclusion of a civil Court when transferring the suit under Section 6-A, though it may agree with the prima facie conclusion for the reasons given by it in its own finding that the defendant is a cultivating tenant. The phrase 'It is proved by affidavit or otherwise' in Section 6-A will, in the context, mean only ' proved prima facie ' and not conclusively. Mr. Desikan's contention that the civil Court has in this case, without jurisdiction, given a. final finding which is binding on the revenue Court is without basis.

3. This Civil Revision Petition deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //