9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1973 (12) TMI 79 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the suit village is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act ? Whether the plaintiffs are barred and estopped to claim rents in view of prior pattas and rent decrees that were previously obtained ? Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? Held that - Allow this appeal, reverse the judgment of the High Court
Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer/Tribunal vs. Civil Court under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. 2. Applicability and effect of Amending Acts 17 and 18 of 1957 and Act 20 of 1960 on pending or decided cases. 3. Determination of whether Kadakalla village is an "estate" under the relevant Acts. 4. Finality and binding nature of civil court decrees. 5. Retrospective effect of legislative amendments on vested rights and pending litigation. Detailed Analysis 1. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer/Tribunal vs. Civil Court under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 The core issue was the extent of the respective jurisdictions of the Settlement Officer/Tribunal and the Civil Court. The Settlement Officer initially held that Kadakalla was not an 'inam estate' but later found it to be an estate under the Madras Estates Land (3rd Amendment) Act, 1936. The appellants contested this in the Civil Court, which decreed in their favor. The High Court upheld this decree. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Settlement Officer's jurisdiction under s. 9(1) of the Abolition Act is exclusive but limited to determining whether a village is an "inam estate." The civil court retains jurisdiction to challenge the Settlement Officer's findings if they exceed his jurisdiction or if the statutory provisions were not complied with. 2. Applicability and Effect of Amending Acts 17 and 18 of 1957 and Act 20 of 1960 on Pending or Decided Cases The Amending Acts 17 and 18 of 1957 and Act 20 of 1960 were examined for their impact on pending or decided cases. The Supreme Court held that these amendments did not have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated. The amendments did not affect the finality of the decrees in O.S. 47 of 1953 and O.S. 101 of 1954, which were based on the law as it existed prior to these amendments. The Court emphasized that new statutes should not be construed to alter the law applicable to claims in litigation at the time of their enactment unless expressly stated. 3. Determination of Whether Kadakalla Village is an "Estate" under the Relevant Acts The Settlement Officer initially found Kadakalla to be an estate under the 1936 Amendment Act. The appellants challenged this, arguing that the village was not an "inam village" as the grant was not of the whole village. The civil court and subsequently the High Court upheld this contention. The Supreme Court supported the civil court's jurisdiction to determine this issue, noting that the Settlement Officer's finding on whether a village is an "inam village" is a jurisdictional fact that can be reviewed by the civil court. 4. Finality and Binding Nature of Civil Court Decrees The decrees in O.S. 47 of 1953 and O.S. 101 of 1954 were found to be final and binding. The Supreme Court held that the decree in O.S. 101 of 1954, which was based on a compromise agreement between the parties, was non-appealable under s. 96(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The agreement to abide by the High Court's decision in A.S. 668 of 1954 was lawful, and the resulting decree had become final and executable. 5. Retrospective Effect of Legislative Amendments on Vested Rights and Pending Litigation The Supreme Court emphasized that legislative amendments should not be construed to have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated. The Amending Act 20 of 1960 did not retrospectively nullify the final decrees of civil courts. The Court noted that the decision of the Settlement Officer, which had been vacated by the civil court decrees, could not be revived by the 1960 amendment. The principle that new laws should interfere as little as possible with vested rights was reiterated. Conclusion The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for decision on the remaining issues. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of respecting the finality of civil court decrees and the limited retrospective effect of legislative amendments.
|
