# C::HINNAMUTHU GOUNDER AND ORS. ETC v. P. A. S. P.EltUMAL CHETrIAR F e/Jru•ry Hi, 1 '70 - **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 704 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1970 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1116 to 1118 of 1966 - **Bench:** J. c. SHAH, K. s. HEGllE Am> A. N. GllOVER - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/c-hinnamuthu-gounder-and-ors-etc-v-p-a-s-p-eltumal-chetriar-f-e-jru-ry-hi-1-70-5073 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Madras Cultivating Tenants -,,..tection Act (Mad, 25 of 1955), ss. 3(2) (Ii) and 6A-Scope of. A I The respondent, who was the occupancy ryot of an inam village, filed a suit for eviction of his lessees, the appellants (who were the cultivating tenants) , and for possession of the land. The appellants set u, occupancy C rights in themselves as a defence. The lower courts and the High Court 'found that the appellants wilfully denied the title of the respondent. and decreed the suit. On the question of the jurisdiction of the civil ceurt to try the suit, HELD : Under s. 6A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, the civil court is iounll te transfer a suit for possession to the o Revenue Divisional Officer only if the defendant proves that he is a culti· vating tenant entitled to the ltenefits under the Act, that is, if he proves the existence of both the conllitioas, namely : (a) that he is a cultivatin1 tenant, and (b) that he is eatitlell te the llenefits unller the Act. Under s. 3(2)(d) of the Act, however, a tenant cannot claim the llenefits under the Act if he wilfully denies the title of the landlord. Therefore, as !Ao appellants became disentitled to the llenefits unller the Act, the civil court E was competent to try the suit. [706 D-F] The fact that the civil court has to decide initially some questions wi!hin the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court does not aft'eot the interpretation of s. 6A. [706 F-G] V. Kuppuswami &: Ors, v. Sri Subramaniaswami Devuthanam at Thiruvidakkazhi bv its Trustets K A. N. GllOVER, JJ.] Madras Cultivating Tenants -,,..tection Act (Mad, 25 of 1955), ss. 3(2) (Ii) and 6A-Scope of. A I The respondent, who was the occupancy ryot of an inam village, filed a suit for eviction of his lessees, the appellants (who were the cultivating tenants) , and for possession of the land. The appellants set u, occupancy C rights in themselves as a defence. The lower courts and the High Court 'found that the appellants wilfully denied the title of the respondent. and decreed the suit. On the question of the jurisdiction of the civil ceurt to try the suit, HELD : Under s. 6A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, the civil court is iounll te transfer a suit for possession to the o Revenue Divisional Officer only if the defendant proves that he is a culti· vating tenant entitled to the ltenefits under the Act, that is, if he proves the existence of both the conllitioas, namely : (a) that he is a cultivatin1 tenant, and (b) that he is eatitlell te the llenefits unller the Act. Under s. 3(2)(d) of the Act, however, a tenant cannot claim the llenefits under the Act if he wilfully denies the title of the landlord. Therefore, as !Ao appellants became disentitled to the llenefits unller the Act, the civil court E was competent to try the suit. [706 D-F] The fact that the civil court has to decide initially some questions wi!hin the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court does not aft'eot the interpretation of s. 6A. [706 F-G] V. Kuppuswami &: Ors, v. Sri Subramaniaswami Devuthanam at Thiruvidakkazhi bv its Trustets K.ct (Act 1 of 1908) as originally enacted. The plaintiff claimU that he and his predecessors in title were ryots under the inaadars of the village and that the defendants were lessees aa.d were only under-tenants. The defence of the defendants who are appellants before us was that the plaintiff and his predecessor in title were land-holders and not ryots and that the defendants had occupancy rights by long possession and by virtue of the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The trial court, the lower appellate court and the High Court have negatived the contentions of the appellants. It has been concurrently found that the plaintiff and his predecessors were ryots under the inamdar and that the appellants were only undertenants under leases granted by the predecessors in title of the plaintiff. In other words it has been held that the plaintiff is !he occupancy tenant and that the defendants were mere cultivating tenants. In order to determine the point which has been pressed before us it is unnecessary to state other facts. The sole question on which arguments have been addressed is whether the civil court had jurisdiction to decree the suit in respect of possession in the presence of the provisions of tl1e Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955 (Act XXV of 1955) hereinafter called the Act. Section 2(a) defines "cultivating tenant" to mean a person who carries on personal cultivation on any land under a tenancy agreement and includes any person who continues in possession after the determination of the tenancy agreement as also the heirs of su~h person. According to the provisions of s. 3 no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from the holding at the instance of the landlord whether in execution of a · decree or order of a court or otherwise; but that is subject to subsec. (2) which contains the various contingencies in which the tenant cannot claim the protection of the Act. Clause ( d) which appears in the exceptions reads "who has wilfully denied the title of the landlord to the land". According to Explanation I a denial of the landlord's title under the bone fide mistake of fact is not wilful within the meaning of the aforesaid clause. Sections 6 and 6-A are material for our purpose and may be reoroduced : LllupCl/70-15 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 3 S.C.R. S. 6 "No civil court shall, except to the extent specified in section 3 ( 3), have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which t.he Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act." S. 6A ''If in any suit before any Court for possession of, or injunction~ relation to, any land, .it is proyed,by affidavit or otherwise that the defendant 1s a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of this Act, the Court shall not proceed with the trial of the suit but shall transfe~ it to the Divisional Officer who shall thereupon deal with and dispose of it as though it were an application under this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such an application and the apolicant." The clear import of s. 6A is that in any suit before any civil court for possession if the defendant proves not only that he is a. cultivating tenant but· also that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act the civil court is bound to transfer it to the Revenue Divisional Officer and cannot proceed to try and dispose it oi itself. In the present case it has been found by the High Court as also by the trial court that the appellants had wilfully denied the title of the respondent who is the landlord. They thus become disentitled to the benefits under the Act. Consequently the civil court had jurisdiction to proceed with the trial and there was no question of its transferring the suit to the Revenue Divisional Officer. There has been a consisl\:nt course of decisions of the Madras High Court that in order to attract the applicability of s. 6-A both the conditions must co-exist, namely, the defendant must be a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act and he should be entitled to the benefits of the Act. If both these conditions are not satisfied no question of any transfer under s. 6-A will arise. The civil court may have to determine, for the purpose ·Of coming to the conclusion, whether a suit has to be transferred under s. 6-A, certain questions which are within the .iurisdiction of the revenue court under the Act. But that cannot affect the interpretation of the words "cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act". In V. Kuppuswami & Others v. Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam at Tiruvidakkazhi by its Truslees Kanak!13abhai Pillai and Muthurama/inga Chettiar & Others(1 ) this view was clearly expressed by the Madras High Court. In a later Bench decision in M. S. Ramachandra Sastrigal v. Kuppuswami Vanniar( 2) the existence of a third condition was also