Skip to content


Valamaramayyan Vs. Virappa Kandian and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad145
AppellantValamaramayyan
RespondentVirappa Kandian and ors.
Excerpt:
rent recovery act, section 3 - landholder, purchaser of zamindari village, separate assessment not effected, not entitled to enforce acceptance of patta. - - the assistant collector has very clearly shown in his judgment that the plaintiff is not a zamindar;.....subject to the payment of revenue direct to government, nor was he a registered holder of land. the suit was, therefore, dismissed with costs.3. the plaintiff appealed to the district court. but the district judge, for reasons similar to those of the assistant collector, dismissed the appeal being of opinion that, whatever might be the plaintiff's rights as auction-purchased, he had not brought himself within the definition of those persons who were entitled to summary remedies under the rent recovery act.4. the second appeal is made on the ground that the plaintiff, having pur-chased all the rights of the zamindar in the village in question, was a landholder under the rent recovery act to compel the acceptance of a patta.5. the persons who are required by madras act viii of.....
Judgment:

Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.

1. The plaintiff is the purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree of the village of Virakudi which had been mortgaged to him by the Zamindar of Neduvasal. The plaintiff, who has not yet obtained the separate registration of the village in his own name by the Collector, has brought this suit against a raiyat of the village to compel the defendant to accept a patta from him.

2. The defendant objected that the plaintiff was not a landholder within the meaning of the Rent Recovery Act, 1865 : and this is the only question which has been dealt within this suit. The Assistant Collector has very clearly shown in his judgment that the plaintiff is not a zamindar; for, although there was a private arrangement between the zamindar and the mortgagee that the latter should pay a proportion of the peskush to the treasury, and he had in fact done so, yet the Government were not a party to that arrangement, and the zamindar remained liable for the whole of the peskush until the village in question should be separated from the zamindari by the Collector. The Assist-ant Collector proceeded to show that the plaintiff was not a farmer of land either under the zamindar or under Government; neither was the plaintiff subject to the payment of revenue direct to Government, nor was he a registered holder of land. The suit was, therefore, dismissed with costs.

3. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court. But the District Judge, for reasons similar to those of the Assistant Collector, dismissed the appeal being of opinion that, whatever might be the plaintiff's rights as auction-purchased, he had not brought himself within the definition of those persons who were entitled to summary remedies under the Rent Recovery Act.

4. The second appeal is made on the ground that the plaintiff, having pur-chased all the rights of the zamindar in the village in question, was a landholder under the Rent Recovery Act to compel the acceptance of a patta.

5. The persons who are required by Madras Act VIII of 1865, Section 3 to tender pattas to their tenants are zamindars, jagirdars, shrotriyamdars, Inamdars, and persons farming the land revenue under Government

6. Under Section 13 all landholders under the raiyatwar settlement or in any way subject to the payment of land revenue direct to Government, and all other registered holders of land in proprietary right, may proceed under the Act or the recovery of rent if they have taken an agreement in writing from their tenants specifying the rent to be paid. But landholders of this class are not absolutely required to tender a patta. It is clear also that the plaintiff was not at the time of bringing the suit a registered proprietor of land? nor a landholder under the raiyatwari system, nor in any way subject to the payment of land revenue direct to Government.

7. The question is whether the plaintiff is one of the landholders mentioned in the first and third section of the Act. It is not contended that the plaintiff is a jagirdar, shortriyamdars, or Inamdar. But it is contended that, having purchased the rights of the zamindar in the village in question, the plaintiff is in fact the zamindar of that village, and as such is entitled to proceed under the Act to enforce the acceptance of a patta.

8. We are of opinion that, while the plaintiff may have purchased among other rights, the right to have the sale registered by the Collector, and to have the village separately assessed under Section 8 of Regulation XXV of 1802. he has not by his purchase acquired the title of zamindar until he shall have been recognized as a zamindar by the Government, or by the Collector on behalf of Government; and that until the plaintiff shall have obtained the separate assessment and registration of the village in his name under the enact-ment last mentioned he is not a person farming the land revenue under Government who under Section 3 of the Rent Recovery Act would have the right to tender a patta. The plaintiff is not in a position to proceed against a raiyat under the Act until he has entered upon such relations with the Government or with the Collector acting for the Government, as will bring him within one of the classes mentioned in the third section. It is clear that the plaintiff is not farming the village under the zamindar.

9. We are of opinion that the suit was properly dismissed, and that this second appeal must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //