Legality of the notice for arrears of rent sent in the name of dead registered holder.

These two second appeals raise questions relating to the validity of rent sales of ryots’ holdings under Chapter VI of the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908. S.A. No. 915 of 1946 is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in A. S. No. 112 of 1945, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsiff’s Court,Tenkasi, in O. S. No. 205 of 1944, S.A. No. 981 of 1945 is filed by the first defendant in O. S. No. 206 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsiff’s Court, Tenkasi, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge in A. S. No. 113 of 1945 reversing the decree of the District Munsiff.

In Kottayur village of Sivagiri Estate, one Sundaram Pillai was a ryot holding patta No. 406. It comprised amongst others S. No. 220 of the extent of 16 acres and 52 cents. The landholder was the zamindar of Sivagiri. Sundaram Pillai had two daughters. In 1913, he gifted S. No. 220 to his son-in-law, one Kosalaram. There appears to have been a partition of the family properties amongst the sons of Kosalaram as evidenced by Ex. P-2, dated 16th June, 1928. By the partition arrangement the plaintiff’s father got this property and after his death the plaintiff succeeded to it. It would appear that all along the patta had been standing in the name of Sundaram Pillai though he died somewhere about 1924. The transferee Kosalaram never got the patta transferred in his name. It does not apppear that he intimated to the landholder the transfer by Sundaram Pillai. In 1933, for arrears of rent of fasli 1341 the landholder gave notice of the intended sale of the ryot’s holding under section 112. This is evidenced by Ex. P-6. It reads as follows:

“Sundaram Pillai, son of Arunachalam Pillai, ryot and pattadar Nos. 406 of No. 10, Kottayur village, Sivagiri zamin, is informed that a sum of Rs. 87-8-1 is due from him by way of arrears. Unless the above amount is paid within 30 days after the date of the receipt of this notice or unless a claim is lodged before the Collector objecting to the right of sale, the holding mentioned in the 7th column noted below herein will be sold.”

This notice was sent for service on the party and the endorsement of service reads as follows:

“On enquiry made about the person mentioned in the notice (it is found) that he died. His heir is not present in the locality. Hence it has been affixed to the outer door of the house of the above person No. 406.”

The sale notice Ex. P-6(a), dated 16th September, 1933, under section 117 of the Act, is signed by the Revenue Divisional Officer who fixed the date, time and place of the sale also. The sale officer conducted the sale on 25th October, 1933, and the property was bought in by the landholder. It would appear that in 1939 the property purchased was assigned to the first defendant in O. S. No. 206 of 1944 who is the appellant in S. A. No. 981 of 1946. The holding covers two acres now identified as S.No. 220/A-1. Again in 1934 the landholder initiated proceedings under section 112 of the Act for alleged arrear of rent for fasli 1342. The notice is Ex. P-3, dated 29th September, 1934. That also is in terms similar to the earlier notice, Ex. P-6, and informs Sundaram Pillai of the existence of the arrear and the sale proceedings initiated. The property that was proposed to be sold was two acres in another portion of S. No. 220 being the western portion in S. No. 220 of A-2. This notice Ex. P-3 was returned with the endorsement,

“The addressee mentioned herein died. His proper heir is not present in the locality. Hence the notice issued in the name of the above person has been affixed on the outer door of the house where he resided. Another copy has been suspended by a rope tied to the stick fixed in the land under attachment. Another (copy) has been affixed to the front portion of the Pillayar temple, a public place in the village. It has been published also by torn torn.”

The sale notice under section 117 was settled and signed