Skip to content


Venkatasubbaraya Ayyar Alias Papier and ors. Vs. State of Madras and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1958)1MLJ413
AppellantVenkatasubbaraya Ayyar Alias Papier and ors.
RespondentState of Madras and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....land held for the purpose of agriculture.' we agree with the learned judge that section 23(a)(ii), which alone governs the liability of the appellants, furnishes no basis for a claim, either based on the old contract between the landholder and the appellants or upon any claim indepencent of that, that what is payable to them as thirishvekam should be adjusted towards the rent payable under the terms of section 23(a)(ii) of the act.2. the appeal fails and is dismissed. there will, however, be no order as to costs.3. the learned counsel for the appellants desires us to point out that the rights of the appellants as persons entitled to the thirishvekam inam can in no way be affected by the determination of their liability to pay rent which, as we pointed out, is governed only by the.....
Judgment:

P. Rajagopalan, C.J.

1. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning and the conclusions of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. That the appellants were entitled to the Thirishvekam grant was never in dispute. It was also common ground that the mode of payment of the Thirishvekam allowance, to which the appellants and their predecessors-in-title were entitled, was by adjusting what was payable to each of the sharers of the Thirishvekam grant to what was payable by him as rent on the holdings he held in the estate. The Thirishvekam grant was one-sixth of the beriz of the village of Papanaickenpatti. So long as Papanaickenpatti was an estate village, the permanent patta, under which this adjustment was permissible with reference to the holding of each of the appellants, was enforceable and it was so enforced, e.g., A.S. No. 26 of 1911 on the file of the District Court, Salem. But now the rights and liabilities of the appellants in relation to Papanaickenpatti, which was one of the villages in the estate, are governed by the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. The liability to pay rent on the holdings in the possession of the appellants has to be determined under Section 23(a)(ii) of that Act. As Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., pointed out, the expression 'rent' has to be construed with reference to the definition in the Estates Land Act 'rent for the use of the land held for the purpose of agriculture.' We agree with the learned Judge that Section 23(a)(ii), which alone governs the liability of the appellants, furnishes no basis for a claim, either based on the old contract between the landholder and the appellants or upon any claim indepencent of that, that what is payable to them as Thirishvekam should be adjusted towards the rent payable under the terms of Section 23(a)(ii) of the Act.

2. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants desires us to point out that the rights of the appellants as persons entitled to the Thirishvekam inam can in no way be affected by the determination of their liability to pay rent which, as we pointed out, is governed only by the terms of Section 23(a)(ii) of the Act.


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