Back
1921 Supreme(SC) 59
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD ATKINSON, LORD PHILLIMORE, AND SIR JOHN EDGE.
SURISETTI BUTCHAYYA - Appellant
Versus
RAJA PARTHASARATHY APPA ROW - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : July. 11. 1921.
Solicitor for appellants : H. S. L. Polak.
Solicitors for respondents: E. Dalgado ; Douglas Grant.
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Land Tenancy and Occupancy Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Interpretation of "Ryot" - The object of the Act is to improve the condition of occupying cultivators; conferring similar rights on middlemen would defeat the policy of the Act and deprive actual cultivators of intended benefits.
Facts of the case:
Appellants held lanka lands under a three-year lease obtained via auction. The lease terms were restrictive and did not provide for continuity of occupation. It was established that the appellants did not cultivate the land themselves but sublet it to cultivating tenants. Upon the expiry of the lease, the appellants claimed permanent occupancy rights and the right to a patta under the relevant land act, asserting they were ryots in possession.
Findings of Court:
The appellants are not ryots with a permanent right of occupancy. They acted as middlemen, and the statutory protections and rights provided by the Act are reserved for those who actually occupy and cultivate the land.
Issues: Whether a lessee who sublets land to cultivating tenants qualifies as a "ryot" with a permanent right of occupancy entitled to a patta under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act's primary objective is to benefit occupying cultivators. A distinction exists between "possession" (which a middleman may have via rent collection) and "occupancy." Under the Act, ijaradars and farmers of rent are classified as non-occupying ryots and are expressly excluded from acquiring permanent occupancy rights. Therefore, a middleman who does not personally cultivate the land cannot compel the landlord to grant a patta.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land law
-
agricultural tenancy
- occupancy rights
- land grants
-
agricultural tenancy
Judgement
Consolidated Appeal (No. 58 of 1919) from a judgment and two decrees (April 14, 1916) of the High Court, affirming two decrees of the District Judge of Kistna at Masulipatam (April 25, 1913) affirming decrees of the Deputy Collector, Ellore, made in summary suits.
The appellants sued for the issue of pattas for certain lanka lands (i.e., land formed in a river bed) under s. 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. They held the lands under leases, the provisions of which appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee, made shortly before July 1, 1908, when the Act above named came into operation. The leases by their terms ended in 1910. The. defendants by
82 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 387 ( 1920- 1921) Surisetti Butchayya V. Raja Parthasarathy Appa Row
183
their written statements pleaded (inter alia) that the plaintiffs were not ryots and were not ryots in possession within the meaning of s. 6, sub-s. 1, of the Act; that they were mere ijaradars or farmers of rent within sub-s. 6 ; and that the lanka lands were specifically let as "ijara" lands to prevent the acquisition of any right of occupancy.
The District Judge, affirming the Deputy Collector, dismissed the suit. He was of opinion that the plaintiffs held the lands on July 1, 1908, as " ijaradars " (whom he distinguished from "farmers of rent"), and were not holding as occupying ryoti tenants, and that therefore they had acquired no occupancy rights.
The High Court affirmed the decrees. Napier J., who delivered the judgments, stated that it was admitted that the plaintiffs did not cultivate the lands themselves, but subleased them to cultivating tenants. The learned judge thought that it was unnecessary to decide whether the plaintiffs were ijaradars. He preferred to decide the case on the construction of s. 6, sub-s. 1, read with the interpretation section (s. 3) and other sections, together with a consideration of the broad policy of the Act. The learned judge came to the conclusion that a lessee of the character of the plaintiffs was not a ryot within the meaning of the Act.
1921. June 10. Narasimham for the appellants. The appellants were entitled to pattas under s. 55 of the Act. The effect of the interpretation clause (s. 3) is that everybody holding ryoti land is a ryot for the purposes of the Act. The appellant came under s. 6, sub-s. 1, and not under s. 6, sub-s. 6. The definition of ryot imposes the condition that the land is held" for the purpose of cultivation " ; it does not provide that the tenant must cultivate the land himself. Sect. 187 applies to leases made before and after the Act, so that a tenant cannot contract himself out of the provisions of the Act. It was not suggested that anybody other than the appellants had an occupancy right. The judgment of the High Court proceeded upon a mistaken view that the lease was an ijara lease. [Reference was made to Ramasami v. Collector of Madura . (( 1879) I. L. R. 2 M. 67.)]
Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Parikh for the respondents, who were called on only to refer to recent decisions of the Board dealing with " ryots," referred to Debendra Nath Das v. Bibudhendra Bhramarbar Roy (( 1918) L. R. 45 I. A. 67.); Jagaveera Rama Ettapa v. Arumugam Chetti (( 1918) L. R. 45 I. A. 195.) ; Yerlagadda Mallikarjuna Nayudu v. Somaya . (( 1918) L. R. 46 I.
A. 44.)
De Gruyther K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the respondents in the connected appeal.
July 11. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD ATKINSON. This is a consolidated appeal against two decrees, both dated April 14, 1916, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, affirming two decrees, both dated March 30, 1914, of the Court of the District Judge of Kistna at Masulipatam, which affirmed two decrees, both dated April 25, 1913, of the Court of the Deputy Collector, Kistna District, Ellore, made in Summary Suits No. 376 and No. 377 of 1912.
Though the parties in each of these suits, as well as the property affected, are different, the questions
