Skip to content


Govinda Malavarayan Vs. Velu Mazhavaratan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in59Ind.Cas.307
AppellantGovinda Malavarayan
RespondentVelu Mazhavaratan and ors.
Cases ReferredMuthnaiyan v. Stnnna Samavaiyan
Excerpt:
madras revenue recovery act (ii of 1864), sections 1, 2 and 39 - arrears of revenue, sale for--holder registered pattadar and alienee from hindu widow--interest, nature of, which passes to purchaser. - - the ratio of that decision seems to be that where the collector has proceeded behind the back of the jenmi to settle with the cowldar and issued patta to him, if the cowldar makes default in payment of the revenue, the jenmi who bad no notice of such settlement would be in no way bound by the engagement and was under no obligation to pay the revenue......of the lawful succession of such purchaser to all the rights and property of the former land-holder in the said land.' it is argued that the former land-holder here is the widow and, therefore, all that passed was the widow's interest. to my mind this is an absolutely untenable proposition. the revenue is made a first charge on the land (see section 2). section 3 requires the laud-holder to pay the revenue on the dates fixed. the land-holder is defined in section 1 and the definition, to my mind, means full proprietor of the land. even the very decision relied on by mr. jayarama aiyar in zamorin of calicut v. sitarcma 7 m. 405 makes it clear that what ia sold is the proprietary interest in the land, and not merely what interest the registered pattadar actually had. the.....
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The question argued before us relates to the effect of a sale for arrears of revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act. The registered pattadar was an alienee from a Hindu widow and he made default in payment of the revenue and thus brought about a sale. It is contended by the learned Vakil for the reversioner, the appellant before us, that what passed under the sale was merely the right, title and interest, and nothing more, of the alienee from the widow and that, inasmuch as that alienation was made for necessity, his estate was confined to the lifetime of the widow. In support of this contention, which is in violation of the whole scheme of the Revenue Recovery Act, Section 89 is relied on. Section 39 says: 'that in oases of revenue sales a notice shall be published giving the name of the purchaser and the date of purchase together with a declaration of the lawful succession of such purchaser to all the rights and property of the former land-holder in the said land.' It is argued that the former land-holder here is the widow and, therefore, all that passed was the widow's interest. To my mind this is an absolutely untenable proposition. The revenue is made a first charge on the land (see Section 2). Section 3 requires the laud-holder to pay the revenue on the dates fixed. The land-holder is defined in Section 1 and the definition, to my mind, means full proprietor of the land. Even the very decision relied on by Mr. Jayarama Aiyar in Zamorin of Calicut v. Sitarcma 7 M. 405 makes it clear that what ia sold is the proprietary interest in the land, and not merely what interest the registered pattadar actually had. The decision in another case, Secretary of State v. Ashtamutthi 13 M. 89 , was cited to as but that proceeded upon the peculiar rights of the jenmi in the Malabar Districts and on the practice on the part of the Collector to settle the lands to cowldars. The ratio of that decision seems to be that where the Collector has proceeded behind the back of the jenmi to settle with the cowldar and issued patta to him, if the cowldar makes default in payment of the revenue, the jenmi who bad no notice of such settlement would be in no way bound by the engagement and was under no obligation to pay the revenue. According to the learned Judges, his interest in the land will not be affected. There is another case which has been cited before us, Muthnaiyan v. Stnnna Samavaiyan 28 M. 526 ; it is sufficient to say that the case has really no bearing on the question we have got to decide in this case. If there was any foundation for the contention of Mr. Jayarama Aiyar, we would have had many oases in which the some question was raised and some reported decision would be forthcoming. His contention, to my mind, is entirely untenable and unsustainable. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Oldfield, J.

2. I agree.


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