SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1941 Supreme(Mad) 98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Patanjali Sastri, J.
Sree Raja Velugoti Navaneetha Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu
Versus
Sirigiri Ramanujulu Chetty by next friend Irla Pullaiah Chetty
Decided On : 12.03.1941

The key legal principle established was the interpretation of the definition of 'rent' under the Madras Estates Land Act in relation to the relief intended by Section 15 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act.

Headnote:

Rent - Madras Agriculturists Relief Act - The court considered the definition of 'rent' under the Madras Estates Land Act and its applicability to the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. The key legal provision discussed was the definition of 'rent' under the Madras Estates Land Act and its interpretation in relation to the relief intended by Section 15 of the Agriculturists Relief Act.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed an application under Section 15(4) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act to obtain benefits by paying alleged jodi to the petitioner, who objected that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Finding of the Court:

The Court overruled the objection, holding that the jodi payable to the landholder of an estate comes within the purview of Section 15 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act.

Issues: The only question for determination was whether the petitioner's contention that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application was correct.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'rent' under the Madras Estates Land Act and its applicability to the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, emphasizing the wider definition of 'rent' under the latter Act.

Final Decision: The civil revision petition failed and was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application filed by the respondent in the Court of the Special Deputy Collector, Chandragiri, under Section 15 (4) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. In order to obtain the benefits of the Act, the respondent who is the proprietor of the Muddumudi village, an agraharam situated in the Kalahasti zamindari, paid into Court Rs. 21-12-2 being the jodi alleged to be due to the petitioner herein, who is the representative in interest of the zamindar, and prayed for a declaration that the rent due for Fasli 1347 had been fully paid up. The petitioner pleaded that the jodi payable by the respondent was not rent as defined by Section 3 (iv) of the Act and that therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. This objection was overruled by the Court below and the only question for determination in this civil revision petition is whether the petitioners contention is correct.

2. The term rent is defined for the purposes of the Act as meaning not only rent as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act but also quit rent, jodi, kattubadi, poruppu or the like payable to the landholder of an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, whether a decree, or order of a civil or revenue Court has been obtained therefore or not. The Madras Estates Land Act as amended by the Madras Act XVIII of 1936, contains the following definitions (so far as they are material here):

Section 3(2)(d)-Estate means any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, the village has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors-in-title of the grantee or grantees.

(5) Landholder means a person owning an estate or part thereof and includes every person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate by virtue of any transfer from the Owner or his predecessors-in-title or of any order of a competent Court or of any provision of law.

3. The petitioners contention is that the agraharam in question is an estate and the respondent and not the petitioner is the landholder thereof, and that therefore the jodi due from the respondent is not payable to the landholder of an estate as there could not be two landholders in respect of the same estate. Now, an agraharam is a. village, granted to a community of Brahmins by former rulers or zamindars either absolutely rent-free in which case it is called sarva agraharam or on condition of paying annually a fixed sum which is variously called jodi, poruppu or kattubadi. At the time of permanent settlement of zamindaris in this Presidency, such villages were excluded from the assets of the zamindari for the purpose of fixing the peishcush or assessment payable by the zamindar to the Government, the jodi payable to him being alone included. The result of this was that such villages were thereafter regarded as held by the agraharamdars under the Government and subject to its right of resumption on valid grounds, and they were dealt with on that footing at the time of the subsequent Inam Settlement when they were enfranchised by the Government relinquishing its right of reversion in lieu of a fixed annual payment called quit rent. The jodi, however, continued to be payable to the zamindar as before but it was no longer indicative of the zamindars ownership and the agraharamdars under-tenure of the village. This was why such a village was held not to fall under Clause (e) of Section 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act which included in the definition of estate villages held on a permanent under-tenure in permanently settled zamindaris-see Virabadrayya v. Sonti Venkanna (1913)24MLJ659 . This is not, however, the position in respect of agraharam villages in the Kalahasti zamindari. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Secretary of State for India : in Council v. Raja of Venkatagiri the permanent settlem







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top