Skip to content


(Sri Sri) Gourachandra Deo Garu and anr. Vs. (Marella) Venkatanarayanamurti and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1936Mad147
Appellant(Sri Sri) Gourachandra Deo Garu and anr.
Respondent(Marella) Venkatanarayanamurti and ors.
Cases ReferredLakshminarasimham Pantulu v. Sri Sri Ramachandra Mardaraja Deo
Excerpt:
- - maddulappa 1923 mwn 524. the learned judge observed that though there may be a good deal to be said, if the matter were res integra, he felt bound to follow the rulings in venkatagiri raja v......he holds may be rent. it is in this sense a course of decisions in this court before the estates land act held that an inamdar was a tenant under the zamindar within the meaning of the rent recovery act and the jodi or kattubadi paid by him was rent, whether the inamdar was the assignee of melvaram or the grantee of both varams. in subbarayya v. srinivasa (1881) 7 mad 580 muthuswami ayyar, j., observed that a tenant within the meaning of the rent recovery act need not be confined to agricultural tenants. in lakshminarayana pantulu v. venkatarayanam (1898) 21 mad 116 subramania ayyar, j., said:the learned counsel for the defendants urged that they being inamdars ought not to be held to be within the meaning of the rent recovery act tenants in any sense. this contention is opposed to the.....
Judgment:

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff who is the Zamindar of Chikati seeks to recover from the defendant who is holding a Darimilla Inam under him arrears of kattubadi; for faslis 1331 to 1336. Both the lower Courts gave him a decree only for three years holding, that the rest of the claim was barred by limitation. They followed the ruling of Krishnan, J., in Sambasadasiva Chinna Rayal Varu v. Maddulappa 1923 MWN 524. The learned Judge observed that though there may be a good deal to be said, if the matter were res integra, he felt bound to follow the rulings in Venkatagiri Raja v. Venkata Row (1893) 21 Mad 243 and Gajapathi Raja v. Suryanarayan (1899) 22 Mad 11. In Venkatagiri Raja v. Venkata Row (1893) 21 Mad 243 it was held that a claim for jodi payable by an inamdar to a zamindar being rent on favourable terms was cognisable by the Small Cause Court. In Gajapathi Raja v. Suryanarayan (1899) 22 Mad 11 where a claim was for arrears of kattubadi for four years, the lower Courts gave a decree only for three years arrears; on appeal the High Court confirmed the judgment holding that kattubadi was not a charge on the land when ordinary rent was not so chargeable and they referred with approval to Venkatagiri Raja v. Venkata Row (1893) 21 Mad 243. Though there was no discussion nor any reference to any Article of the Limitation Act, it must be taken that the learned Judges assumed that Article 110 was applicable. In Vijainagaram Maharaja v. Sitarama Raju (1896) 19 Mad 100, only three years arrears of kattubadi were decreed (cf. also Narayanswami Naidu v. Venkatasubbarayudu (1911) 9 MLT 315 which was decided on the same assumption). Article 110 runs thus : 'For arrears of rent: Three years. When the arrears become due.' Bent is not defined in Limitation Act. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the term is payment made by a tenant to the owner or landlord for the right to use land or houses, etc.' Stroud in his Judicial Dictionary explains it thus:

Probably it may be said that the primary meaning of ' rent' is the sum certain, in gross, which a tenant pays his landlord for the right of occupying the demised premises.

2. Therefore in ordinary parlance rent is the amount paid for the use or occupation by a cultivating tenant or occupier of a house or other building. But if a tenant is held to mean a person who holds of another, the amount paid by him to the landlord of whom he holds may be rent. It is in this sense a course of decisions in this Court before the Estates Land Act held that an inamdar was a tenant under the zamindar within the meaning of the Rent Recovery Act and the jodi or kattubadi paid by him was rent, whether the inamdar was the assignee of melvaram or the grantee of both varams. In Subbarayya v. Srinivasa (1881) 7 Mad 580 Muthuswami Ayyar, J., observed that a tenant within the meaning of the Rent Recovery Act need not be confined to agricultural tenants. In Lakshminarayana Pantulu v. Venkatarayanam (1898) 21 Mad 116 Subramania Ayyar, J., said:

The learned Counsel for the defendants urged that they being inamdars ought not to be held to be within the meaning of the Rent Recovery Act tenants in any sense. This contention is opposed to the course of decisions since 1883.

3. It was conceded in that case that the namdars were not occupants of the land but possessed only the right to receive rents due by such occupants. In Nallayappa Pillian v. Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi (1904) 27 Mad 465 the Full Bench observed:

The reference states that the defendants are permanent lessees of the melvaram right of the plaintiff who is a zamindar. Although the defendants are tenants of the plaintiff in the sense they are bound to pay rent to the plaintiff, yet the defendants are obviously, we think, not tenants in the sense in which that word is used in Section 12 of the Act.

4. In Muthusami Pillai v. Arunachalam Chettiar (1906) 29 Mad 79 the learned Judges refer to an intermediate landholder being bound to pay rent to a superior landholder. These decisions are only explainable on the hypothesis that the relationship of landlord and tenant is constituted where one man holds of another land or an interest in land on any tenure and the amount paid in consideration of such holding is rent. Historically we find that kattubadi usually denotes the amount periodically payable subject to which lands were granted to village servants, dependants and others by the zamindar. This payment which is more or less favourable when compared with the full rental value or assessment on the land was the governing feature of the tenure constituted between the zamindar and the grantee, and it is also known at the permanent settlement that this amount of kattubadi was made unchangeable and included in the assets of the zamindari along with the rent from ordinary ryoti land in the occupation of the cultivating ryots. Therefore if rent is given the wider significance in Article 110, Lim. Act, the decision in Sambasadasiva Chinna Rayal Varu v. Maddulappa 1923 MWN 524 appears to be correct. Mr. Sambasiva Rao, contends that the rent in the definition of the Estates Land Act does not include kattubadi and in the original Act kattubadi was included in the term rent but it was removed by a later amending Act and this is an indication that kattubadi could not be rent, and he also relied on the observations in G. Brahmayya v. C Achiraju 1922 Mad 373 45 Mad 716. No doubt it can legitimately be argued that if the inamdar is the owner of both the varams, what is paid by him as kattubadi can be rent but not if he is only a grantee of melvaram on favourable terms.

5. This can only be on the basis that rent means what is paid for the use of the land. From the fact, that for the purposes of the Estates Land Act rent does not include kattubadi, it cannot be said that the word ' rent ' in Article 110, Lim. Act, does not include it. The Estates Land Act regulates only the relations between a landholder and a ryot. It is unnecessary to refer to the decisions under the Local Boards Act where for the purposes of that Act an inamdar was not held to be a tenant : vide Lakshminarasimham Pantulu v. Sri Sri Ramachandra Mardaraja Deo 1914 37 Mad 319. Having regard to the course of decisions of the High Court treating kattubadi as rent, the claim for kattubadi must be held to be governed by Article 110, Lim. Act, and the second appeal therefore fails. (Leave granted).


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