Skip to content


P.K. Soundararaju Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Venkoba Rao and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad490
AppellantP.K. Soundararaju Mudaliar and anr.
RespondentVenkoba Rao and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....the learned judges, who heard it, remanded the case to the lower court, on the ground that the district judge had not considered whether any custom was established, which took the case out of the operation of section 12 of the estates land act. the district judge has reheard the appeal and dismissed it. the representatives of the 1st defendant have preferred this second appeal. it is proved that there is a custom prevalent in certain mittas of the salem district for the trees to be enjoyed separately from the land. it is not unusual for pattas for the trees to stand in the name of one person and the patta for the land to stand in the name of another. the holding with regard to the trees seems to have no relation to the holding as regards the lacd. in this case, the landlord, when he.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. This matter once came up, in Second Appeal No. 1311 of 1918. The learned Judges, who heard it, remanded the case to the lower Court, on the ground that the District Judge had not considered whether any custom was established, which took the case out of the operation of Section 12 of the Estates Land Act. The District Judge has reheard the appeal and dismissed it. The representatives of the 1st defendant have preferred this Second Appeal. It is proved that there is a custom prevalent in certain mittas of the Salem District for the trees to be enjoyed separately from the land. It is not unusual for pattas for the trees to stand in the name of one person and the patta for the land to stand in the name of another. The holding with regard to the trees seems to have no relation to the holding as regards the lacd. In this case, the landlord, when he gave a patta to the plaintiff, reserved the right to the trees, as is clear from Ex. I. The trees on the land had been purchased by the mittadar and were enjoyed by him. The learned District Judge assumes that by such purchase and by such enjoyment, the tree-holding became a home-farm. It is difficult to follow the reasoning of the Judge. A holding, to which the incident of the right of occupancy is attached, does not become |a home-farm land, merely by the fact that the landlord buys it, at a Court auction or at a private Sale. If it is a ryoti lard, it can never become home-farm, by the landlord buying it in Court auction, or otherwise. In this case, the trees were held as a separate holding and what applies to land must also apply to trees, which in the Salem District are held separately from the land. The custom, therefore, that the trees are held differently from the land has been satisfactorily proved and such being the case, when the landlord let the plaintiff into possession of the plaint land and reserved to himself the right of holding the trees, it is difficult to see how ho could claim the trees, as apart of the land. No doubt in ordinary cases, unless there be a custom or contract to the contrary, the occupancy tenant would be entitled to the trees in his holding ; where a custom, exists by which the trees on the land could be held, apart from the land itself, the provisions of Section 12 of the Estates Land Act do not apply. That being so, the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration which he claims. The appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.


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