Skip to content


Sri Raja Satrucheria Veerabhadra Raju Garu, Alias Sivaskanda Raju Bahadur Garu and anr. Vs. Gauta Kumari Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1912)22MLJ451
AppellantSri Raja Satrucheria Veerabhadra Raju Garu, Alias Sivaskanda Raju Bahadur Garu and anr.
RespondentGauta Kumari Naidu and ors.
Excerpt:
- 1. in this case the plaintiff, a land-holder, instituted a suit for rent of faslis 1315 to 1317 and of a portion of fasli 1318. the sub-collector passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour which was reversed by the district court, so far as the rent for faslis 1315 to 1317 was concerned, on the ground that the plaintiff did not tender a patta to the defendant for those faslis, and the suit for rent for those faslis was therefore unsustainable under the provisions of section 7 of the rent recovery act viii of 1865. that section provided that 'no suit brought and ho legal proceedings taken to enforce the terms of a tenancy shall be sustainable unless pattas and muchilikas have been exchanged as aforesaid.' the effect of the section was to make the tender of a patta a condition precedent to.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the plaintiff, a land-holder, instituted a suit for rent of faslis 1315 to 1317 and of a portion of fasli 1318. The Sub-Collector passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour which was reversed by the District Court, so far as the rent for faslis 1315 to 1317 was concerned, on the ground that the plaintiff did not tender a patta to the defendant for those faslis, and the suit for rent for those faslis was therefore unsustainable under the provisions of Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865. That section provided that 'no suit brought and ho legal proceedings taken to enforce the terms of a tenancy shall be sustainable unless pattas and muchilikas have been exchanged as aforesaid.' The effect of the section was to make the tender of a patta a condition precedent to entitle a landlord to institute legal proceedings to enforce the terms of a tenancy. It did not make the exchange of pattas and muchilikas or the tender of a patta necessary to give the landlord a right to the rent of the land in the tenant's possession. That right was complete when the tenant obtained from the land his landlord's share of the produce. It was held, while Act VIII of 1865 was in force, in cases where rent was payable by instalments, that the right to each instalment of rent accrued on the date fixed for the instalment and that limitation would run from that date. The District Judge observes:-'If the terms of Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act were not complied with, within the fasli, suits brought to recover arrears of rent were barred by time. This suit, for arrears of rent for faslis 1314 to 317, was barred by time under the Rent Recovery Act as no pattas admittedly were tendered within any of those faslis.'

2. We cannot agree with the Judge that Section 7 laid down any rule of limitation. The limitation for a suit for rent is three years from the time when it accrues due, and it accrues due when it is payable according to the contract between the parties or according to usage, and not when a patta is tendered. The tender of a patta is only a statutory prerequisite to entitle the landlord to take legal proceedings against his tenant and not a condition necessary to complete his right to the rent. This condition has now been dispensed with by the Estates Land Act. Section 53 of that Act makes the tender of a patta necessary only when the landlord wishes to distrain and sell the tenant's moveable property or to bring the holding to sale. The result is, the landlord is now liberated from the necessity of doing an act which was necessary when the old Act was in force. The plaintiff's therefore entitled to maintain his suit for rent of faslis 1315 to 1317 without tendering a patta.

3. We must therefore allow the appeal and award to the plaintiff rent for faslis 1315 to 1317, also to the extent claimed in the appeal.

4. The District Judge allowed interest at 6 per cent, per annum. This modification will stand as it has not been disputed by the appellant. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs throughout.


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