9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (11) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not an Inam estate within the definition of Act XXVI of 1948 and Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, that Act XXX of 1947 did not apply to it, and that the relevant Notifications of the State Government applying the two Acts to the village were illegal. ( 2. ) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not maintainable, and he pointed out that under Section 9(4)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n brought on record, the matter can now be canvassed in appeal before us. The facts here are that the appeal was once disposed of by the Tribunal, and that then the parties inclusive of the present appellants, invited a rehearing of the appeal and a decision afresh as the ryots had not been made parties at the original hearing. The ryots were then impleaded, and the Tribunal proceeded to dispose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review their judgments, where due cause is shown. Our attention has been drawn to a decision briefly reported in Balakrishnayya v. State of Andhra : (1954) 67 L.W. 36 (Short Notes), where Balakrishna Ayyar, J., held, under somewhat similar circumstances, that the Inam Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen an enquiry made under Section 9 of Act XXVI of 1948, at the request of the ryots. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds, we think that the present appellants are totally estopped from contending that the Tribunal could not have reheard the appeals, and rendered a decision afresh. This is because the appellants invited such a rehearing and specifically consented to this procedure, in their own interests, so that the ryots may also be bound by the decision. We do not think it is necessary to labour the point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be liable to be questioned in any Court of law . We find that a precisely similar provision has been enacted in Section 7(3) of Madras Act XXX of 1956. Whatever might be the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, so long as this Court is exercising its powers in civil appeal, its jurisdiction to interfere will certainly by affected by these valid provisions of law. Hence we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
