Skip to content


Areti Subbayya Vs. Sree Raja Venkataramiah Apparao Bahadur Zamindar Garu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in79Ind.Cas.718; (1924)47MLJ469
AppellantAreti Subbayya
RespondentSree Raja Venkataramiah Apparao Bahadur Zamindar Garu and anr.
Cases ReferredRajah of Venkatagiri v. Ayyappa Reddi I.L.R.
Excerpt:
subject: property - .....kattayya v. sree rajah venkataramayya row bahadur : (1920)39mlj571 . if the land in question were ryoti land the argument may be sound, but the finding of both the lower courts is that this land is not ryoti land because it is not ordinarily cultivable. the learned appellate judge says that it is a sort of waste land usually submerged in water in the rainy season and not under cultivation at all. on that finding section 163 will not apply and there will be no ground for objecting to the civil courts ascertaining the mesne profits due. it is, however, contended before me that as the land has been actually cultivated by the appellant for some years, it must be taken to be cultivable land, being in a zamindari estate, it must be treated as a ryoti land and the finding to the contrary by.....
Judgment:

Krishnan, J.

1. In this case the point taken before me is that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to grant mesne profits in the way the lower Courts have done as the plaintiff is entitled only to such profits as can be claimed under Clause 2 of Section 163 of the Madras Estates Land Act under which mesne profits have to be ascertained by the Collector under Section 45, and reliance is placed upon the ruling in Kotikalapudi Kattayya v. Sree Rajah Venkataramayya Row Bahadur : (1920)39MLJ571 . If the land in question were ryoti land the argument may be sound, but the finding of both the lower Courts is that this land is not ryoti land because it is not ordinarily cultivable. The learned appellate Judge says that it is a sort of waste land usually submerged in water in the rainy season and not under cultivation at all. On that finding Section 163 will not apply and there will be no ground for objecting to the Civil Courts ascertaining the mesne profits due. It is, however, contended before me that as the land has been actually cultivated by the appellant for some years, it must be taken to be cultivable land, being in a zamindari estate, it must be treated as a ryoti land and the finding to the contrary by the District Judge should not be accepted. Ryoti land is defined in the Estates Land Act as meaning cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include tank beds, thrashing floors, etc. It certainly does not include waste land where no cultivation is ordinarily carried on. In Section 6, Clause 4, waste land and grazing land are treated as lands in which a person cannot get permanent rights of occupancy. This has been pointed out by the learned Judges in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Ayyappa Reddi I.L.R. (1913) M 738 : 25 MLJ 578.; their observations are found at pages 740 and 741. When the definition of ryoti land speaks of cultivable land, it seems to me that it means land that is ordinarily and usually cultivated and does not refer to waste land though even waste land can at times be cultivated with labour and expenditure of money. I think that the finding of the lower Court that this land is not ryoti land is correct.

2. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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