Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1958 DIGILAW 171 (MAD)

Kamalambal v. Krishnaswami Vandayar

1958-07-03

RAMACHANDRA.IYER

body1958
Judgment.- The landlord is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order of the Revenue Court passed under section 4 (5) of the Madras Act XXV of 1955 restoring possession of the lands to the respondent. The petitioner, landlord got a decree in ejectment against the respondent and obtained delivery of possession on 6th September, 1956, through the process of the Civil Court. That delivery has been duly recorded in the execution proceedings of the decree in ejectment and it would not be open to the parties to challenge the truth or otherwise of the delivery except by way of appeal from that order recording delivery. The record of the Civil Court showing that delivery has been effected on 6th September, 1956 is conclusive on the question as between the parties as to whether in point of fact property was delivered over to the landlord or not but unfortunately the Revenue Court did not appear to have felt bound by the adjudication by the Civil Court and has proceeded to investigate the question whether really there was any delivery in the Civil Court. The record of delivery in the Civil Court is, in my opinion, binding not only on the parties but also on the revenue Court. As stated already the application for restoration of possession was filed under section 4 (5) of Act XXV of 1955. That section as originally enacted did not apply to the areas to which the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act (Act XIV of 1952) applied. The land in the present case is situate in Tanjore district and was therefore, governed by the provisions of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act. That section as originally enacted did not apply to the areas to which the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act (Act XIV of 1952) applied. The land in the present case is situate in Tanjore district and was therefore, governed by the provisions of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act. Madras Act XXV of 1955 was amended by the Madras Act XIV of 1956 which introduced Explanation II to section 4 of Act XXV of 1955 in these terms: Explanation II.-“In relation to areas where the Tanjore Tenants and pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952 (Madras Act XIV of 1952) and to areas where the South Kanara, Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1954 (Madras Act VI of 1954) were in force immediately before the date of coming into force of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1956 the expression” commencement of this Act wherever it occurs, in this Act “ shall be construed as referring to the date aforesaid.” By reason of this Explanation the tenant would be entitled to claim restoration of possession if on the date of coming into force of the Madras Act XIV of 1956 or thereafter he was dispossessed but as stated already he was dispossessed on 6th September, 1956, that is sometime before coming into operation of the Madras Act XXV of 1955 as amended by Act XIV of 1956 in regard to areas to which Madras Act XIV of 1952 applied. Act XIV of 1956 received the assent of the President on 29th September, 1956. It is, therefore, clear that the tenant-respondent cannot claim the benefit of section 4 (5) of Act XXV of 1955. Mr. Venkataraman on behalf of the respondent argued that the words in the Explanation, namely, “the expression commencement of this Act shall be construed as referring to the date aforesaid” would only refer to the date of coming into force of the Madras Act XXV of 1955 in its original form. I think this contention is not well founded. A reading of Explanation II clearly shows that the “date aforesaid” refers only to the date when the Act XIV of 1956 came into force. The order of the lower Court cannot, therefore, be sustained and the respondent would not be entitled to restoration of possession as he is not entitled to the benefit of the Madras Act XIV of 1956. The order of the lower Court cannot, therefore, be sustained and the respondent would not be entitled to restoration of possession as he is not entitled to the benefit of the Madras Act XIV of 1956. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed with costs and the application before the revenue Court for restoration of possession will stand dismissed. R.M. ----- Petition allowed.