Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam, a temple trust, sued in civil court for damages claiming the respondent was a trespasser on about 727 acres of land let into his possession in 1944 without Board sanction, treating the transaction as an invalid permanent lease under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1927.
The respondent contended the lands were ryoti, he was a ryot with occupancy rights under the Madras Estates Land Act 1908, and the suit was only cognizable by revenue court under Section 189. Trial court decreed on merits holding the lease invalid, but High Court reversed, finding the lands ryoti, respondent a ryot, lease valid, and civil court lacked jurisdiction, ordering return of plaint, while also dismissing appellant's cross-objection on a payment credit.
Supreme Court, on appeal, focused first on jurisdiction as a threshold issue, holding that if a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it cannot decide merits or cross-objections but must only determine jurisdiction and return the plaint if absent, as civil courts are barred from suits for rent arrears or ejectment against ryots under Section 189 read with Schedule Part A; it upheld the return of plaint but set aside the High Court's order on cross-objection for overstepping, dismissing the appeal with costs except on that point.
Law Point:
When a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a suit, it cannot decide any question on merits, including cross-objections; it must confine itself to determining the jurisdictional issue and, if absent, return the plaint for presentation to the proper court (Para 14).
Suits by landholders for recovery of rent arrears or ejectment against ryots with occupancy rights in estates are exclusively within the jurisdiction of revenue courts (District Collector or Collector as Revenue Court), and civil courts have no original jurisdiction to entertain them under Section 189(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act 1908 read with Entries 3 and 11 of Schedule Part A (Para 13).
Case Title: Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam Vs. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: 9 May 1963: Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1961: 1963 SCC OnLine SC 251: Supreme Court of India: K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal and J.R. Mudholkar, JJ.
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
