Skip to content


Ravi Tirupathi Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. Rajah Kaminayuni Krishnappa Nayanim Varu, Being Minor Represented by the Manager of the Court of Wards and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1946Mad230; (1946)1MLJ80
AppellantRavi Tirupathi Naidu (Died) and ors.
RespondentRajah Kaminayuni Krishnappa Nayanim Varu, Being Minor Represented by the Manager of the Court of War
Excerpt:
- .....is not separately marked and i directed it to be marked as ex. r. the defendants are ryots holding ryoti land under the chundi estate of which the plaintiff is the landholder. there were two defendants in the suit. the first defendant died pending the second appeal and his legal representatives now continue the appeal.2. the sole question is whether certain conditions contained in ex. r, the patta sought to be enforced and in ex. a the muchilika sought to be executed by the ryot are legal and whether they ought to find a place in the patta and muchilika. both the patta and muchilika comprise two items, s. nos. 59 and 80. s. no. 59 is admittedly a ryoti land and there is no dispute as regards the terms of the patta and muchilika as regards that land. s. no. 80 is stated by the plaintiff.....
Judgment:

Somayya, J.

1. The suit is by the landholder to enforce the acceptance for fasli 1350 of a patta tendered by him and for execution of a muchilika by the defendants ryots. The muchilika which the landholder wants the ryot to execute is marked as Ex. A. The patta is not separately marked and I directed it to be marked as Ex. R. The defendants are ryots holding ryoti land under the Chundi estate of which the plaintiff is the landholder. There were two defendants in the suit. The first defendant died pending the second appeal and his legal representatives now continue the appeal.

2. The sole question is whether certain conditions contained in Ex. R, the patta sought to be enforced and in Ex. A the muchilika sought to be executed by the ryot are legal and whether they ought to find a place in the patta and muchilika. Both the patta and muchilika comprise two items, S. Nos. 59 and 80. S. No. 59 is admittedly a ryoti land and there is no dispute as regards the terms of the patta and muchilika as regards that land. S. No. 80 is stated by the plaintiff to be a pasture land and to have been given for pasturage. The defendants stated that, the land, S. No. 8os was in their possession for a long time, paying a fixed rent of eight annas per Gorru. They object to paragraphs 8 and 12 in the patta and in the muchilika. Clause 8 says that in respect of pasture lands in the possession of the defendants, if any dry or wet crops are raised the tenant is to pay kist at the rate prevailing for similar lands in the neighbourhood; and if in respect of such lands a third party offered to take the whole or any portion of it at a particular rate of rent then option is to be given to the tenant defendant to take those lands at the rate offered by the third party. If he consented to take the lands at that rate the landholder is to give these lands to the tenant but if the tenant did not agree to take the lands at those rates the tenant should give up those lands. Clause 12 says that in respect of lands. included in section I, the tenant is to have permanent rights of occupancy; in respect of lands mentioned in section II, the tenant is not to have any permanent rights of occupancy and in respect of lands included in Section III the tenant is to have only the right of grazing cattle and no other right. In the schedules attached to Ex. A.R.S. No. 59 is mentioned under Section I and S. No. 80 is mentioned under Section III, both with the heading Saswatha hakku kalavu, or land in which there is a permanent right. Mr. Venkatachalam, the learned advocate for the appellant, urges that in respect of land which is given for pasture purposes--which he says is the case of the plaintiff--no conditions can be introduced in a patta and muchilika under Section 51 of the Estates Land Act with the possible exception of the sum payable on account of pasturage fee. Mr. Venkatachalam does not object to the sum of Rs. 7-5-2 mentioned in the document as the sum payable in respect of S. No. 80. But he objects to clauses 8 and 12 being retained in the patta and muchilika. I think this contention must be upheld. On the plaint case S. No. 80 is only pasture land and was given out for pasture. If so it is not ryoti land and the tenant does not hold it for purposes of agriculture. Chapter IV of the Estates Land Act begins with Section 50. It says that the provisions of the Chapter shall apply to all ryots. Section 51 says that the patta shall contain the names of the parties, the rate or amount and the nature of the rent payable thereon, etc., etc. And rent is defined as whatever is lawfully payable in money or in kind or in both to a landholder by a ryot for the use or occupation of land for the purpose of agriculture; and sub-paragraph (2) of Section 3(11) says that for the purposes of certain Sections named in it a sum lawfully payable to a landholder by a ryot as such on account of pasturage fees is also rent; but the sections in respect of which a sum payable by a ryot on account of pasturage is deemed to be rent do not include Sections 51 to 55. Therefore, a patta and muchilika cannot be enforced in respect of lands set apart for pasturage. The only possible exception is that by express language of Section 51(1) a sum payable by a ryot on account of pasturage fees, may be mentioned in the patta. It is unnecessary to go into that question because the appellant-tenant does not object to the Rs. 7-5-2 being retained as the sum payable on S. No. 80. But the other conditions with respect to S. No. 80 cannot be introduced in either the patta or muchilika. They must be the subject of a different agreement and they cannot be introduced in either Ex. A or Ex. R. Clauses 8 and 12 in the patta and muchilika will be deleted and the appellants are directed to accept a patta in terms of Ex. R with the clauses 8 and 12 omitted and to execute a muchilika in terms of Ex. A with a similar deletion of clauses 8 and 12. In the schedule as against S. No. 80, the words ' Section III ' will have to be omitted. The appellant will have his costs in all the Courts.


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