Back
1922 Supreme(SC) 17
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT CAVE, LORD SHAW, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI
RADHAKRISHNA AYYAR - Appellant
Versus
SUNDARASWAMIER - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : March 14, 1922.
Solicitor for appellants: Douglas Grant.
Solicitors for respondent: Chapman-Walker & Shephard.
A High Court's certificate of valuation is conclusive for appeal competency. Under the Estates Land Act, 1908, puttahs decreed under the Rent Recovery Act, 1865, remain binding until legally modified, as the term "decreed" in Section 52(3) encompasses such prior decrees.
Headnote:(A) Estates Land Act, 1908 - Section 52(3) - Rent Recovery Act, 1865 - Section 11 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 109 and 110 - Competency of appeal - Valuation of subject matter - Conclusiveness of High Court certificate - Whether a puttah decreed under a previous Act remains in force under the subsequent Act - Interpretation of rent terms for mixed crops.
(B) Appeal - Competency - Valuation - Where a certificate of value is granted by the High Court, such certificate is conclusive under the applicable Order in Council, regardless of the actual sum claimed, as the true value may involve the determination of overall contract relations or capitalized value.
(C) Estates Land Act, 1908 - Section 52(3) - "Decreed" puttahs - The term "decreed" in Section 52(3) is not limited to decrees of a specific court and includes those decreed under the Rent Recovery Act, 1865 - Such decreed rent continues to be binding until reduced or enhanced by special applications under the statute.
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed in a revenue court to recover rent arrears for three years based on a puttah. The tenants, who were occupancy ryots, rejected the puttahs, contending that a lower sum was due. Previous decrees had enforced puttahs in the same form. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competency of the appeal based on the valuation of the subject matter being below the statutory threshold.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the certificate of valuation provided by the High Court was conclusive. Regarding the merits, it found that the previously decreed puttahs remained in force under the 1908 Act. Furthermore, it determined that for mixed crops, the tenant is liable to pay the specified rate on each part of the crop.
Issues: Whether the appeal was competent given the valuation of the suit; whether the term "decreed" in Section 52(3) of the Estates Land Act, 1908, includes decrees under the Rent Recovery Act, 1865; and the correct interpretation of rent liability for mixed crops.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the certificate of value from the High Court is conclusive under the Order in Council of 1838. On the substantive law, it ruled that Section 52(3) of the 1908 Act ensures that decreed muchalkas/puttahs remain in force until fresh ones are exchanged or decreed, and this applies regardless of which court passed the original decree.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
appellate jurisdiction
- valuation of subject matter
-
appellate jurisdiction
-
land law
-
estates land act
- occupancy ryots
- puttahs and muchalkas
- rent recovery
-
estates land act
Judgement
Appeal (No. 112 of 1918) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (November 14, 1916) varying a decree of the District Judge of Tanjore pronounced on appeal from the Revenue Divisional Officer of Kumbakonam.
The suit was brought in the Revenue Court under the Estates Land Act (I. of 1908, Mad.), s. 77, to recover arrears of rent of certain inam lands. The plaintiff (represented by the present respondent) was receiver in a partition suit of family property including the inam lands which were an " estate," as defined by that Act. The defendants were occupancy ryots in whom the kudiwaram interest in the land vested. The claim was for rent said to have accrued in accordance with a puttah tendered in respect of Faslis 1318, 1319, and 1320. The defendants had rejected the puttahs, and contended that a less sum, which they paid into Court, was due. The inamdar in proceedings under the Rent Recovery Act (VIII. of 1865, Mad.) had obtained decrees in respect of former years enforcing the puttahs in the form now tendered. The last of these decrees was made by the Divisional Officer in April, 1904. The material terms of the puttah appear from the judgment of their Lordships.
The District Judge and the High Court (Oldfield and Phillips JJ.) held that the puttah, being in the terms of that previously decreed, was in force by virtue of s. 52, sub-s. 3, of the Estates Land Act (I. of 1908, Mad.), but the Courts had arrived at different results on its construction.
The present appeal originally came on for hearing in December, 1920, and was then dismissed on the ground that the certificate for leave to appeal was insufficient (see L. R. 48 I. A. 31). Subsequently a certificate which had not been included in the record was produced, and by an order made on June 3, 1921, the appeal was restored to the list upon terms. The terms of the new certificate appear in the judgment.
1922. Feb. 9. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for respondent. The appeal is not competent under ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The amount of rent claimed was under Rs.4500, and the value of the subject matter was clearly under Rs. 10,000. The certificate having been wrongly given the appeal is not competent Banarsi Per shad v. Kashi Krishna Narain (( 1900) L. R. 28 I. A. 11.); Radha Krishu Das v. Rai Krishu Chand . (( 1901) L. R. 281. A. 182.)
Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the appellants. The subject matter was of a value of Rs. 10,000 and upwards. The valuation of the appeal does not wholly depend upon the sum claimed Gooroopersad Khoond v. Juggutchunder . (( 1860) 8 Moo. I. A. 166.) In the present case the decree settled the rent payable annually, and the capitalized value must be considered. Further under r. 2 of the Order in Council of 1838 the certificate of the High Court is conclusive of the value. That Order was repealed only by the Order of 1920 ; that was after this appeal had been entered.
De Gruyther K.C. in reply. The rules in the Order in Council of 1838 were made in relation to 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 41, only; they do not apply to appeals which now are made under and subject to the Code of Civil Procedure. In Radha Kunwar v. Reoti Singh (( 1916) L. R. 43 I. A. 187.) the Board held that a certificate of valuation was wrongly made and refused to hear the appeal.
THEIR LORDSHIPS desired to hear the appeal, the question of competency being reserved.
Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the appellants. The appellants are not bound by the previous puttah as the effect of s. 52, sub-s. 3, of the Madras Land Estates Act, 1908. That sub-section does not refer to puttahs decreed under Mad. Act VIII. of 1865. The Act of 1908 entirely altered the relations of landlord and tenant in Madras. The Act of 1865 by s. 11 made the rent depend upon agreement express or implied. The Act of 1908 introduced other considerations, its keynote being ss. 27, 28 and 29 ; s. 74 too was new. " Decreed " in s. 52 means decreed as fa
