KONERU SATYANARAYANA Vs. VEMPATI KODANDARAMA SASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals arise out of two summary suits for rent on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, Bezwada & Bandar division. The lands in respect of which rants were claimed are situate in the inam village of Kuchipudi in the district of Krishna which, according to the line of argument adopted in this Ct. must be taken to have become an estate for the first time under the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act XVIII [18] of 1936. At the time that the Act came into force there was Ex. C, a khat of 12-4-1932 in force between the Agraharamdars, the pltfs. & the tenant, the deft. The Deputy Collector held that the rent fixed by that document had to be altered suitably to the fact of permanent occupancy right which the Act for the first time conferred upon the deft. & that a fair & equitable rent payable should be ascertained by him by substituting for the bags of paddy stipulated under that document what might represent half of the net income of the land as proved by evidence. This he did following the decision of Chandraaekhara Aiyar J. in S. A. No. 1SG6 of 1942 (not reported). Kefer-ring to that decision he says :

(2.) In the initial stages of the argument I was inclined to think that the Special Deputy Collector did right & the learned Dist, J. did wrong, although at the close of the argument my mind was not made up one way or the other. I have, since reservation of judgment, carefully considered the matter & have come to the conclusion that these appeals should fail.

(3.) The argument of Mr. Ramanarasu that what the Special Deputy Collector did was right has been attempted to be supported by reference to a decision of this Ct. in Raja of Pithapuram v. Venkatasubba Rao, 31 I. C. 93: (A.I.R. (3) 1916 Mad. 1092) as well as to the unreported decision of Chandrasekhara Ayyar J. above mentioned. In Raja of Pithapuram v. Venkatasubba Rao, 31 I. C. 93: (A. I. R. (3) 1916 Mad. 1092) Seshagiri Aiyar & Napier JJ. held that an agreement to pay an increased rate of rent entered into before the Madras Estates Land Act came into force by a person who was a yearly tenant did not bind him after the Act came into force, as his status became changed by the Act. Dealing with Section 52, Madras Estates Land Act, relied upon in support of the argument that the agreement would bind the tenant notwithstanding the change of status created by the Act, the learned Judges held that the section applied only to pattas & muchilikas exchanged since the Act came into force, & that no retrospective effect could be given to that section so as to bring within its operation pattaa & muchilikas executed under the Rent Recovery Act, VIII [8] of 1865 & tenable for a year only. It mast be noted, however, that this view did not commend itself to a Bench of this Ct. (Oldfield & Phillips JJ.) in a later ease reported in Radhakrishna Aiyar v. Swaminatha Aiyar, 40 I. C. 587 : (A.I.R. (5) 1918 Mad. 1152). There the Ct. observed ; "The more important objection is that Ex. C. 1 was obtained for fasli 1311 under Act VIII [8] of 1865 in a Ct. which would not be competent to try the suit, in which it is now proposed to plead it, &, therefore, it cannot be res judicata under Section 11, C. P. C. The answer is that the general doctrine of res judwata is not in question, but the appln. of the special rule stated in Section 52 (3), Estates Land Act, under which muchilikas decreed for any revenue year remain in force until the beginning of the year for which fresh ones are exchanged or decreed, & that there is no reason for restricting the scope of the general reference to muchilikas decreed to those decreed by any particular description of Ct. Such, a restriction was, no doubt, imposed on the interpretation of the section in Jagannadha Bhupati Deo v. Appalasami, 23 I. C. 576 : (A.I.R. (1) 1914 Mad. 206) on the ground that pattas it muchilikas under Act VIII (8) of 1865 were current for one year only & that the Legislature cannot be supposed to have intended to enlarge their currency. But the words of the Section are clear, as they stand, & there is, in my opinion, no necessity or justification for reference to extrinsic considerations in order to their construction. In Raja of Pithapuram T. Venkatambba, 31 I. C. 93 : (A. I. R. (3) 1916 Mad. 1092) the restricted interpretation was supported also on the ground that any other would have given retrospective operation to the section, in the sense presumably that the effect of the exchange of patta & muchilika would be extended beyond the period originally contemplated by the parties to it. But, if that ease cannot be distinguished on the ground that, unlike the present, it deals with non-occupancy tenants, there is still no reason for treating this objection as decisive. For the presumption against a retrospective construction is not applicable, simply because apart of the requisite for the action of the Statute is drawn from the time antecedent to ita passing (Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 3rd Edn. p. 307) or where the Statute affects only the procedure of the Cts. (p. 313); & in the present case, the unrestricted effect of the section is only to recognise a relation, which existed before the Act, & to direct its continuance until it is terminated by the method for which the Act provides." It is significant too that the decision in Radhakrishna, Aiyar v. Swaminatha Aiyar, 40 I. C. 587: (A.I.R. (5) 1918 Mad. 1152) was affirmed by the P. C. in Radhakrishna Aiyar v. Sundaraswamier, 45 Mad. 475: (A.I.R. (9) 1922 P. C. 257). Lord Shaw in the P. C. expresses the full agreement of the Board with this view at p. 484 of the report. I may add however, that the position before me is not strictly one covered by the rulings of the H. C. in Rajah of Pithapuram v. Venkatasubba Rao, 311. C. 93: (A.I.R. (3) 1916 Mad. 1092) & Radhakrishna Aiyar v. Swaminatha Aiyar, 40 I. 0. 587: (A.I.R. (5) 1918 Mad. 1152) or the decision of the P. C. in Radhakrishna Aiyar v. Sundaraswamier, 45 Mad. 475: (A.I.R. (9) 1922 P. C. 207).