Skip to content


Subbaraya Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Krishanamachariar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.811
AppellantSubbaraya Mudaliar and ors.
RespondentKrishanamachariar
Excerpt:
madras estates land act (1865) - terms of patta. - - it is urged that it is merely a condition intended to prevent the pattas of one fasli from being treated as evidence of a contract for subsequent year but if so it is very badly expressed and is not couched in a form which the tenant can properly be bound to accept......exhibit b is illegal and invalid, but we do not agree with him. the last clause does not leave the classification of the lands to the arbitrary decision of the landlord and the agreement seems to be supported by consideration. we need not decide in these appeals whether it is enforceable against any of the respondents, because it being found that no proper classification has been made under it, pattas tendered in accordance with its terms cannot be enforced.3. we modify the decrees only in the case in which the respondents are varan pattadars, viz. second appeals nos. 750, 753, 756, 760, 762, 767, 826, 798, 818, 823, 821, 834, and 838 of 1907.4. in these cases the pattas to be tendered are to contain the conditions of the pattas of fasli 1313. the other appeals are dismissed. the.....
Judgment:

1. In Second Appeals Nos. 757 &c.; the respondents are dead. And no representatives are have been brought on the record these appeals are dismissed. In the remaining cases the respondents in some of the appeal have not signed the agreement B. and it is not now contended that those who have not signed it are bound by it In these cases only two questions arise (1) in the case of those who pay money rents, ought the lower Courts to have expunged the last sentence of the pattas ordered to be tendered? (2) in the case of those who pay in kind the land-holder entitled to enforce the Cowle rates of varam. On the 1st question, we are of opinion that the last sentence was properly expunged from the rokka pattas. It is urged that it is merely a condition intended to prevent the pattas of one Fasli from being treated as evidence of a contract for subsequent year but if so it is very badly expressed and is not couched in a form which the tenant can properly be bound to accept. On the 2nd question, we find that the varum muchilika, of which Exhibit G, in Second Appeal No 750 of 1907 is a sample, do not amount to admissions that the half varam now payable is a rent reduced by the present landlord's predecessors under circumstances which would warrant the present landlord in reverting to the Cowle rate of varam. The agreement recited in muclnUka is not on record and Exhibit q indicates that, whatever it was it was founded on consideration moving from the tenants. There appears to be nothing objectionable in the last clause of the varum pattas, and it was possibly by oversight that that clause was ordered to be expunged.

2. The District Judge finds that Exhibit B is illegal and invalid, but we do not agree with him. The last clause does not leave the classification of the lands to the arbitrary decision of the landlord and the agreement seems to be supported by consideration. We need not decide in these appeals whether it is enforceable against any of the respondents, because it being found that no proper classification has been made under it, pattas tendered in accordance with its terms cannot be enforced.

3. We modify the decrees only in the case in which the respondents are varan pattadars, viz. Second Appeals Nos. 750, 753, 756, 760, 762, 767, 826, 798, 818, 823, 821, 834, and 838 of 1907.

4. In these cases the pattas to be tendered are to contain the conditions of the pattas of Fasli 1313. The other appeals are dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs of all respondents except in Second Appeals Nos. 757, 777, 797 and 816 of 1907.


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