Skip to content


Obai Goundan Vs. Ramalinga Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ256
AppellantObai Goundan
RespondentRamalinga Aiyar
Cases ReferredSatyesh Chunder Sircar v. Dhunpul Singh I. L. R.
Excerpt:
- .....satyesh chunder sircar v. dhunpul singh i. l. r., 24 c., 20.2. it was next contended that this document exhibit ii should be held to be binding on the plaintiff inasmuch as rent which up to then was payable only in respect of such lands as were cultivated thereby was made payable in respect of the entire holding whether cultivated or not. if up to the date of this document the defendant was not bound to pay for other than cultivated lands, the agreement on the part of the defendant to pay for lands whether cultivated or not would have made the agreement binding not only on the late zemindar, but also upon the plaintiff, his successor, and no question would have arisen under the proviso to section 11, rent recovery act; but in the lower courts the defendant did not allege that prior.....
Judgment:

1. We think the judge was in error in holding that Exhibit II required to be registered. The document only evidences an agreement to vary the terms of tenancy with reference to the amount of rent to be paid. As such it cannot be held to relate to an interest in immovable property and, therefore, did not require registration, Satyesh Chunder Sircar v. Dhunpul Singh I. L. R., 24 C., 20.

2. It was next contended that this document Exhibit II should be held to be binding on the plaintiff inasmuch as rent which up to then was payable only in respect of such lands as were cultivated thereby was made payable in respect of the entire holding whether cultivated or not. If up to the date of this document the defendant was not bound to pay for other than cultivated lands, the agreement on the part of the defendant to pay for lands whether cultivated or not would have made the agreement binding not only on the late Zemindar, but also upon the plaintiff, his successor, and no question would have arisen under the proviso to Section 11, Rent Recovery Act; but in the lower Courts the defendant did not allege that prior to this document he was entitled to remission as a matter of right. We cannot, therefore, say that the Judge was wrong in holding that the remissions prior to it were mere concessions Exhibit VII to which our attention has been drawn is not consistent with the contention that the remissions were a matter of right, nor does the language of Exhibit II itself support that view. That Exhibit II does not grant reduction of rent otherwise properly payable in respect of the land is quite clear, and unless such reduction is granted for any of the purposes set out in the proviso to S 11, already referred to, the arrangement must be held not to be binding upon the plaintiff. The finding of the Judge is that the reduction was not agreed to for any such purposes. The mere fact that the defendant has made some improvement since the execution of Exhibit II cannot bring the case within the exception to this proviso.

3. For these reasons, we must hold that the decree of the lower appellate Court is right, and dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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