Skip to content


B. Perraju Garu Vs. B. Subbarayudu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1913)ILR36Mad126
AppellantB. Perraju Garu
RespondentB. Subbarayudu and ors.
Excerpt:
madras estates land act (i of 1908), section 3, 53 and 189 and schedule a, article 8 - suit for cist, local cess, village cess by an ijaradar--maintainability only in revenue court--exchange of patta and muchilika not necessary for recovery of rent by suit under estates land act--'ijaradar' and 'rent,' definitions of--article 13 of schedule of act ix of 1887 (provincial small cause courts act). - .....of cesses--all of which are comprehended within the definition of rent.3. the plaint must there fore be returned for presentation to the proper court.4. i may observe that the district munsif is also wrong in his view that article 13 of the schedule to the provincial small cause courts act applies to a suit for land cess or village cess. this question has been fully dealt with recently by a bench of this court of which i was a member. see second appeal no. 680 of 1910 5. in the result i set aside the decision of the lower court and direct that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper court.in c.r.p. nos. 443 to 461 of 1910.
Judgment:

Sundara Ayyar, J.

1. This is a suit by the ijaradar of a share of the village of Karapa situated within the limits of the Pittapur estate for the recovery of cist, local cess and village cess due by the defendant who is one of the ryots cultivating land in the village. The suit was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that there was no agreement; to dispense with pattas and muchilikas, it being admitted that there was no exchange of pattas and muchilikas so far as the cist was concerned. With respect to the cesses alleged to be due from the defendant the lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, its jurisdiction being excluded by Article 13 of the schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The finding against the agreement to dispense with pattas and muchilikas being one of fact, could not be, and has not been contested before me, But the District Munsif appears to be wrong in supposing that a suit in a Small Cause Court for rent would be unsustainable under the present law on the ground that there was no exchange of pattas and muchilikas. This was no doubt the rule under Section 7 of Act VIII of 1865. But the Estates. Land Act has altered the law on the subject. Section 53 of that Act lays down that 'a landholder shall have no power to proceed against a ryot for the recovery of the rent by distraint and sale of his moveable property or by sale of his holding unless he shall have exchanged a patta and muchilika with such ryot,' etc. But no such rule is enacted with respect to the recovery of the rent by a suit.

2. The District Munsif has overlooked another matter of importance in this case. The plaintiff as ijaradar comes within the definition of 'land holder' in Section 3(5) of the Estates Land Act, as the definition includes, 'every person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate by virtue of any transfer from the owner or his predecessor in title,' and the word 'rent' is defined so as to include 'any local tax, cess, fee or sum payable by a ryot as such in addition to the rent due in respect of land according to law or usage having the force of law, and also money recoverable under any enactment for the time being in force as if it was rent.' Section 189 of the Act read with Schedule A, Article 8, puts the plaintiff out of a Small Cause Court with respect to the whole of his claim which is composed partly of cist and partly of cesses--all of which are comprehended within the definition of rent.

3. The plaint must there fore be returned for presentation to the proper Court.

4. I may observe that the District Munsif is also wrong in his view that Article 13 of the schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act applies to a suit for land cess or village cess. This question has been fully dealt with recently by a Bench of this Court of which I was a member. See Second Appeal No. 680 of 1910

5. In the result I set aside the decision of the lower Court and direct that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court.

In C.R.P. Nos. 443 to 461 of 1910.


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