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 rais