1963 (5) TMI 78 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the suit lands (whether ryoti lands).
2. Status of the respondent (whether a ryot).
3. Validity of the lease without the sanction of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board.
4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court over the suit.
5. High Court's handling of the cross-objection.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Suit Lands:
The appellant contended that the lands in question were private iruvaram lands and not ryoti lands, arguing that parts of the land were tank beds and uncultivable. However, the Trial Court and the High Court both found the lands to be ryoti lands. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the lands, although uncultivated for a long time and covered with shrubs and jungle, were cultivable. The Court emphasized that land which can be brought under cultivation is considered cultivable unless specified otherwise by law. The appellant's contention that the land required significant expenditure to cultivate was dismissed due to a lack of substantial evidence.

2. Status of the Respondent:
The appellant argued that the respondent was not a ryot as defined in Section 3(15) of the Madras Estates Land Act because he allegedly did not agree to pay rent. The Court found this contention factually incorrect, noting that the respondent's statements indicated disputes over the rate of rent, not the liability to pay rent. The respondent was admitted to the land for cultivation, and there was sufficient material to show he was liable to pay rent. Thus, the respondent was deemed a ryot under the Act.

3. Validity of the Lease Without the Sanction of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board:
The appellant claimed that the lease was invalid under Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, as it was not sanctioned by the Board. The Court held that the lease did not specify a period exceeding five years and that the respondent's permanent right of occupancy was conferred by statutory provisions, not by the lease term. Consequently, the letting of the land did not amount to a lease for a term exceeding five years and did not require the Board's sanction. The lease was therefore valid.

4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court Over the Suit:
The High Court determined that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court, as suits for the recovery of rent and ejectment of a ryot fall under the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court per Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that such disputes are explicitly excluded from the Civil Court's jurisdiction. The High Court's order to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court was upheld.

5. High Court's Handling of the Cross-Objection:
The appellant argued that the High Court should not have dealt with the cross-objection regarding the adjustment of a payment made by the respondent, given the Civil Court's lack of jurisdiction over the suit. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that when a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, it cannot decide on the merits of any issue. The High Court's order dismissing the cross-objection was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal except for the part relating to the High Court's handling of the cross-objection, which was set aside. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent throughout.