Skip to content


In Re: A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar, Zamindar of Devakottah Through His Agent, D. Minakshisundaram Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad440; 30Ind.Cas.679
AppellantIn Re: A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar, Zamindar of Devakottah Through His Agent, D. Minakshisunda
Cases ReferredVeerappa Chetty v. Tindal Ponnen
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - dry area left waste without tenant's negligence--tenant if liable to pay rent there for--madras estates land act (i of 1908), section 4, if disentitles tenant to claim exemption from payment--practice--procedure--suit against dead man--amendment of plaint into one as against legal representative if allowable. - .....on dry lands as rent or only to 10 fanams?(2) whether he is entitled to levy rent on the dry area left waste without the tenant's negligence?2. the first question has been decided as a question of fact by the district judge and we can see no grounds for interference on second appeal with that finding, which has been based on a consideration of the whole evidence.3. on the second question the appellant's learned vakil (mr. a. krishnaswamy aiyar) relied on section 4 of the estates land act for his contention that neither custom nor contract could deprive the zemindar of his right to charge rent on the area left uncultivated. butthe case reported as segu rowthen v. alagappa chetty 22 ind. cas. 83and the decisions in second appeals nos. 1244 and 1245 of 1913 of this court have held.....
Judgment:

1. Two questions are common to most of these second appeals and they are:

(1) Whether the zemindar (appellant) is entitled to charge 12 fanams per kurukkam on dry lands as rent or only to 10 fanams?

(2) Whether he is entitled to levy rent on the dry area left waste without the tenant's negligence?

2. The first question has been decided as a question of fact by the District Judge and we can see no grounds for interference on second appeal with that finding, which has been based on a consideration of the whole evidence.

3. On the second question the appellant's learned Vakil (Mr. A. Krishnaswamy Aiyar) relied on Section 4 of the Estates Land Act for his contention that neither custom nor contract could deprive the zemindar of his right to charge rent on the area left uncultivated. Butthe case reported as Segu Rowthen v. Alagappa Chetty 22 Ind. Cas. 83and the decisions in Second Appeals Nos. 1244 and 1245 of 1913 of this Court have held that agreements and customs entitling the tenants to claim non-liability for rent on the area left fallow can be successfully set up notwithstanding Section 4 of the Estates Land Act.

4. In one of the second appeals before us the question is whether, when the plaint was directed against a dead man and the plaint was afterwards amended as a plaint against his living legal representative, the Court had jurisdiction to treat the suit as one brought against the legal representative and decide it on that footing. Veerappa Chetty v. Tindal Ponnen 31 M.K 86 is clear authority against the appellant and we follow it.

5. There are additional questions involved in those second appeals which have been filed against the decisions in Appeal Suits Nos. 128, 146, 158,159 to 163 and 118 of 1914 on the file of the District Court. But those questions are questions of fact, namely, whether the tenants had raised second crops on their lands, whether certain lands are dry or wet, and what is the proper rate for plantain cultivation. They have all been decided on admissible evidence against the appellant.

5. We, therefore, dismiss the second appeals.


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