Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1965 Supreme(SC) 179

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ
S. N. Sudalaimuthu Chettiar, Appellant
Versus
Palaniyandavan, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; M/s. S. C. Agarwala, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg and M. K. Ramamurthy, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthy and Co., for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.P.Singh, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, NAUNIT LAL, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL

A person is said to carry on personal cultivation when he contributes his own physical labor or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of the land.

Headnote:
MADRAS CULTIVATING TENANTS PROTECTION ACT, 1955 - S. 2(a), 3(3)(a) - CULTIVATING TENANT - DEFINITION - HEIRS OF DECEASED TENANT - WHETHER ENTITLED TO PROTECTION OF ACT - PERSONAL CULTIVATION - MEANING OF.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a landlord, challenged the order of the Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi, allowing the respondent, the son-in-law of the deceased tenant, to deposit the arrears of rent under S. 3(3)(a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The respondent claimed protection under the Act as the heir of the deceased tenant, although neither he nor the deceased tenant's widow and daughter were personally cultivating the land.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to the protection of the Act as he was not personally cultivating the land and that the work of supervision done by him did not amount to physical labor.
Issues: Whether the respondent, as the son-in-law of the deceased tenant, was entitled to the protection of the Act as a cultivating tenant, even though he was not personally cultivating the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the definition of "cultivating tenant" in S. 2(a) of the Act, as amended by Madras Act 14 of 1956, and held that a person is said to carry on personal cultivation when he contributes his own physical labor or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of the land. The Court further held that the respondent, as the son-in-law of the deceased tenant, could be considered a member of the family, but there was no finding by the Sub-Collector as to whether he was actually contributing physical labor to the cultivation of the land.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions of the Courts below, and remitted the matter to the Sub-Collector for a decision on whether the respondent was putting in physical labor in the cultivation of the field.

Judgement

MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Madras dismissing a petition for revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the revision application the appellant had challenged the order of the Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi, by virtue of which the respondents were permitted to deposit the arrears of rent due in respect of a holding of which one Kanda Devan was a tenant. The aforesaid order was made under S. 3 (3) (a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

2. It is common ground that this Act which was originally to remain in force for a period of three years is still in force by virtue of the provisions of amending Acts passed extending its duration from time to time. The expression "cultivating tenant" is defined thus in S. 2 (a) of the Act :

" cultivating tenant in relation to any land means a person who carries on personal cultivation on such land and, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes -

(i) any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement, and

(ii) the heirs of such person, but does not include a mere intermediary or his heirs."

By the Amending Act, Madras Act 14 of 1956, CL. (ee) was added to S. 2 which purports to define the meaning of the expression "carry on personal cultivation". Clause (ee) reads thus :

"a person is said to carry on personal cultivation on a land when he contributes his own physical labour or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of that land;"

The provisions set out above are relevant for consideration in this appeal. What happened was that Kanda Devan, who was the cultivating tenant, died some time before the proceedings before the Sub-Collector commenced. He left behind as his heirs his widow Palaniachi Ammal and his daughter Ramalakshmi Ammal. The respondent before us is the daughter s husband and holds a power of attorney both from her and Palaniachi Ammal. There was default in payment of rent and so the respondent by virtue of power of the attorney in his favour made an application in the year 1962 before the Sub-Collector under S. 3 (3) (a) of the Act for depositing the rental arrears. The appellant who is the landlord contested the application on the ground that neither the wife nor the daughter of the deceased Kanda Devan was a cultivating tenant as defined in the Act because they were not personally cultivating the land and that, therefore, they were not entitled to the protection afforded by the Act. The Sub-Collector over-ruled the objection and, as already stated, directed the respondent to deposit the rental arrears. The question is whether the respondent was rightly allowed to deposit the arrears.

3. It is not disputed that Palaniachi Ammal and Ramalakshmi Ammal are the heirs of Kanda Devan, who, being a tenant, was entitled to the protection of the Act. It is also not disputed that after the death of Kanda Devan the land is being cultivated on behalf of these two women and that they are not personally cultivating them, in the sense that they are not contributing physical labour for its cultivation. It is, however, contended on behalf of the respondent that it is not necessary for a tenant to contribute physical labour before he can be held entitled to the benefit of the provision. Two decisions of the Madras High Court bearing on the point were cited before us. The first of these is Kunchitapatham Pillai v. Ranganatham Pillai(1958) 1 Mad LJ 272. In that case Balakrishna Iyer, J., held that in order to qualify as a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the definition given in the Act it was not necessary that a person should put his own muscular effort into the soil. Construing a similar expression occuring in the Tenjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Ordinance IV of 1952, Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., observed in an unreported case. Writ Petn. No. 426 of 1953 (SC):

"Before a person can be a cultivating tenant, he or members

Click Here to Read the rest of this document