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 fair and