Pasturage land is not ryoti land unless cultivable, so ryot status and Revenue Court jurisdiction fail.

Land used only for grazing was held not to be ryoti land unless it was cultivable land within the statutory definition. Mere leasing for pasturage did not create ryot status or occupancy rights, and the defendants failed to prove that the lands were cultivable. As a result, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction under the Madras Estates Land Act. On the possession claim, the plaintiff was entitled to ejectment because the defendants held the lands under annual grazing leases, and damages, interest, and costs were allowed at the agreed rate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit lands, being used only for grazing, were ryoti land so as to make the defendants ryots under the Madras Estates Land Act and attract the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court; (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ejectment and damages.

Issue (i): Whether the suit lands, being used only for grazing, were ryoti land so as to make the defendants ryots under the Madras Estates Land Act and attract the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court.

Analysis: The lands had been leased for pasturage for many years and had not been cultivated. Land held only for pasture was not treated as land held for the purpose of agriculture within the statutory definition of ryot, and ryoti land had to be cultivable land. Waste land did not become ryoti land merely because it was let for pasturage, and letting ryoti land for pasturage did not by itself confer an occupancy right. The defendants failed to prove that the lands were cultivable land.

Conclusion: The lands were not ryoti land, the defendants were not ryots, and the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction under Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ejectment and damages.

Analysis: Since the defendants were not ryots and the lands were held under annual leases for grazing, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession. The rate of damages was accepted by both sides and was fixed on that basis.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ejectment and damages at the agreed rate, with costs and interest.

Final Conclusion: The decree below was set aside and the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining ejectment with damages, interest, and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Land used only for grazing does not become ryoti land unless it is cultivable land within the statutory definition, and mere pasturage does not confer ryot status or occupancy rights.

---