Back
1929 Supreme(SC) 61
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD TOMLIN, AND SIR BINOD MITTER.
BOMMADEVARA NAGANNA NAIDU (SINCE STRUCK OUT) - Appellant
Versus
YELAMANCHILI PITCHAYYA (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : July 1. 1929.
Solicitors for appellants :Chapman- Walker & Shephard. Solicitor for respondents: H. S. L. Polak.
A reservation of rights to trees in a written contract executed before the Settled Estates Act, 1908, remains operative throughout the permanent occupancy, except for trees planted or naturally grown after the Act. Cultivable land, even if currently waste, constitutes ryoti land.
Headnote:(A) Settled Estates Act, 1908 - Section 12 - Rights to trees on holding - Reservation by contract - Permanent right of occupancy - Where rights to trees on a holding were reserved to the landholder by a written contract executed before the passing of the Act, such reservation remains operative throughout the permanent occupancy created by the Act, except in the case of trees planted by the ryot or which naturally grow upon the holding after the passing of the Act. A reservation by contract is treated identically to a reservation by custom in terms of duration. (Paras 18-20)
(B) Settled Estates Act, 1908 - Section 3, sub-section 16 - Ryoti land - Cultivable land - Land designated as dry pasture waste constitutes ryoti land if it is cultivable, regardless of whether it has been actually cultivated. The provision of a lower rent rate for such land to facilitate reclamation does not preclude it from being classified as ryoti land. (Paras 24-25)
Facts of the case:
A landholder granted a ten-year lease of land, specifically reserving all rights to the trees on the holding. During the term of the lease, legislation was enacted granting permanent occupancy rights to ryots. Upon the expiry of the lease, the landholder tendered a puttah that continued to reserve the trees and excluded certain acreage of dry pasture waste. The tenants refused to accept the puttah, contending that the statutory provisions granted them rights to the trees and that the pasture waste was cultivable ryoti land and should be included in the holding.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reservation of trees in the written contract executed prior to the Act survived the expiry of the lease and remained valid during the permanent occupancy. It further found that while some of the excluded land consisted of tank-beds, the remaining 297 acres were cultivable and therefore constituted ryoti land.
Issues: (1) Whether a reservation of tree rights in a written contract executed before the Act continues to operate after the lease expires and the occupancy becomes permanent under the Act; (2) Whether dry pasture waste constitutes ryoti land if it is cultivable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since reservations by custom are operative throughout the permanent occupancy, reservations by written contract must be treated the same way. A construction to the contrary would deprive landholders of property of great value without compensation. Regarding the land, the capacity for cultivation defines ryoti land, and a concessional rent for waste land is a matter of hardship relief for reclamation, not a determination of the land's nature.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
- occupancy rights
- tree rights
-
land tenure
-
practice and procedure
- costs
Judgement
Appeal (No. 115 of 1924) from a decree of the High Court (October 28, 1919) varying a decree of the District Court of Kistna at Masulipatam which affirmed a decree of the Court of the Suits Deputy Collector.
The suit was brought by the father of the appellants against defendants now represented by the respondents for a decree directing the defendants to accept a puttah tendered to them by the appellants under the Madras Settled Estates Act, 1908, and to execute a corresponding muchalka.
The questions arising were (1.) As to the effect of s. 12 of the Act where a ryot had contracted before the Act that all rights in trees on his holding should belong to the landholder ; (2.) Whether 297 acres included in a lease before the Act were ryoti land within s. 3, sub-s. 16, and s. 6 of the Act.
On the first question the High Court (Seshagiri Ayyar and Napier JJ.), reversing the District Judge, held that the reservation did not operate beyond the term of the lease.
The facts and the terms of s. 12 of the Act appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1929. May 10, 13. P. V. Subba Row for appellant No. 2.
Dunne K.C. and Narasimham for the respondents.
July 1. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD BLANESBURGH. There are two questions raised by this appeal they both lie within the narrowest compass ; the second of them barely survives to come before the Board, so complete has been judicial agreement upon it in India, while the determination of the first, which now alone is serious, depends upon the construction of a few words in a single section of a statute. Yet the plaint in the suit was issued as long ago as October 18, 1912, and it is nearly seventeen years thereafter that these short questions reach the Board for final determination, and, in the result will now be settled as they were settled by the Revenue Court in India nearly fifteen years ago. In the course of the proceedings not only has the plaintiff died, but one of his legal representatives, originally appellant, has dropped out, leaving it to the plaintiffs other representative, the second appellant, by himself to bring his case to a hearing. Not the least important of their Lordships duties in disposing of the appeal has been the task of determining how the costs thrown away as the result of well-nigh interminable proceedings in India should now be borne.
The two appellants are the sons and legal representatives of the original plaintiff, the late Raja of North Vellore. On June 6, 1901, the Raja granted to one Ramayya Garu, father of the respondents, for a term of ten years, expiring Fasli, 1320, a lease of some 1363 acres of land in the village of Narayanapuram. Prior to this lease in his favour, Ramayya Garu had, as it is now agreed, no occupancy or other rights in the holding, which, but for the passing of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, would in ordinary course have reverted to the zamindar on the expiry of the lease.
Of the acres comprised in it some 843 were entered as being in cultivation, and 520 as being dry pasture waste. The annual rental for the whole was fixed at Rs. 1784.13, representing, so far as the " cultivation " lands were concerned, a rent of Rs. 0.14.2 per acre, and for the " dry pasture waste " a rent of 8 annas per acre. The lease, however, contained a provision, much relied upon by the appellant
Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 346 ( 1928- 1929) Bommadevara Naganna Naidu V. Yelamanchili Pitchayya
151
in support of his second ground of appeal, that if the lessee raised dry cultivation on the dry pasture waste he had to pay cist upon the land so cultivated at the higher rate of Rs. 0.14.2 per acre as well as expenses.
The main, if not the only real, question now at issue between the parties is as to their respective rights in what the District Judge, at one stage of the case, described as an immense belt upon the holding of paying trees—comprising at least 8000 palmyras and date palms fit for tapping, yielding a substantial r
