The main legal point established in the judgment is that suits for enhancement of rent may be premature and not maintainable under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, particularly Section 37(1), if there has been an actual enhancement within twenty years prior to the suits, and the policy of the Act is to not entertain claims for enhancement of rent within twenty years after the rent has been enhanced.

Pandrang Roa, J.

1. These are appeals from the decrees of the District Judge of West Godavari dated 23rd January, 1931, affirming on appeal the decrees of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Nidadavole dated 29th June, 1929, in certain suits instituted under Section 30, Clause (1) of the Madras Estates Land Act for enhancement of rent on the ground of a rise in the prices of food grains. The enhancement claimed was two annas in the Rupee of the rent till then payable, and not two annas per putti as stated in the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the enhancement claimed being the maximum allowed by the Act. This enhancement has been allowed by both the Courts below. On the merits of this enhancement nothing need be said as the question is one of fact and there are concurrent findings thereon.

2. The only point argued in these appeals is whether the suits for enhancement of rent are maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act which runs as follows:

A suit for enhancement on the ground of a rise in prices shall not be entertained, if within the twenty years next preceding its institution, the rent has whether before or after the passing of this Act been commuted or enhanced or a suit for enhancement has been dismissed on the merits.

3. The facts necessary for the determination of this question of law are as follows. The suits fall into two classes, those included in Ex. Q and those included in Ex. U. In the case of the former class of suits there were previous suits filed by the landholder in which the only claim was for enhanced rent. These suits were dismissed by the High Court finally in 1916. If these suits can be regarded as suits for enhancement of rent there can be no doubt that the present suits as against the ryots whose holdings were the subject-matter of the previous suits are premature and not maintainable, because they were brought only about twelve years after the dismissal of the previous suits. As regards the second class of suits there were no previous suits but as a matter of fact enhanced rent was being demanded and paid in respect of the holdings concerned up to 1916. The facts common to both classes of suits are that at least in 1888 the rent that was payable was only Rs. 80 per putti and this was raised to Rs. 82 in 1912. Three years later it was raised to Rs. 85 and two years afterwards to Rs. 90. In respect of fasli 1318 the landholder attempted to claim a further enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per putti, and it was then that the ryots refused to pay and the suits referred to already had t6 be instituted by the landholder in 1909, 1910 and 1911. As an example I shall take S.S. No. 104 of 1909. It was stated in the plaint that the ryot had executed muchilikas agreeing among other things to pay a cist of Rs. 42-8-0 for fasli 1316, Rs. 50-10-0 for fasli 1317 and Rs. 56-4-0 for fasli 1318 and the suits were in form suits to recover arrears of rent for faslis 1316 and 1317 and the rent for fasli 1318 at the rates mentioned above. The principal issues in the suit were whether the enhancement of rent claimed for fasli 1318 was lawful and valid and whether the enhancements for faslis 1316 and 1317 were valid and binding on the tenants beyond those faslis. It is clear to my mind that those suits, though they purported to be suits for recovery of arrears of rent, were in substance suits for establishing a claim to enhanced rent. There was no other important question raised in the suits than a claim to recover rent at an enhanced rate, and it was this claim that was heard and decided finally on the merits. The final result of the suits was the dismissal of the claim to enhanced rent. It is therefore clear that so far as the Ex. Q class of cases is concerned there is no bar imposed by Section 37(1) of the Act, for it is clear that the previous suits had been dismissed on the merits within twenty years prior to the filing of the present suits, the dismissal