POONGAVANAM PILLAI Vs. V SUBRAMANYA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether in a purchase of agricultural land by private sale, the land being under a lease at the time of the sale, the rent can be apportioned between the buyer and the seller under Section 36, T. P. Act. The petitioner. Poongavanam Pillai, purchased 1 acre 56 cents of land from respondent 1, Subramania Pillai, for RS. 8,500 under a sale deed dated 27-1-1948. At the time of the sale there was standing on the land paddy crop raised by the lessee, respondent 2, who had to pay, according to finding of the lower Court, 24 3/4 kalams of paddy as rent to respondent 1 for the whole year, though only 7 kalams out of it remained to be paid at the time of the sale The contract of sale did not say anything about this paddy or the rent to be paid by respondent 2 to respondent 1. Nor did respondent 2 then agree to pay the petitioner any portion of the rent. So, no "different intention" was expressed under Section 8, T. P. Act. It was admitted by the vendee (petitioner) in the lower Court, that he fixed the price only with reference to the land (at about Rs. 23 a cent) and without taking into account the crops or the rent, but the lower Court did not infer that a different intention was necessarily implied by this under Section 8, and there is no revision petition by the vendor. In this revision petition I accept the findings of fact by the lower Court regarding the quantum of rent, namely, that an annual rent of 24 3/4 kalams of paddy was payable, and that the rent was not payable in two fixed instalments, and that a katam of paddy was worth Rs. 12 at the material time. The paddy was harvested a month after the sale. The vendee, Poongavanam Pillai, then asked the vendor and the lessee to pay him the rent. The lessee said that he had paid the rent except 7 kalams to the vendor. The vendor also confirmed this, and denied the vendee's right to the rent, but, in order to avoid a suit, offered to make the lessee pay the 7 kalams still due to the vendee. The vendee refused this very generous offer of compromise and filed S. C. no. 117 of 1948 for recovering the entire rent of 24) kalams or its value, Rs. 834-2-0 as estimated by him. The lower Court applied Section 36, T. P. Act, apportioned the rent between the vendor and the vendee, and gave the vendee (petitioner) a decree for two kalams or Rs. 24, and dismissed the rest of his claim against defendant 1 (vendor) with costs. The suit was dismissed against defendant 2 without costs. Hence the revision petition by the vendee.

(2.) The learned counsel for the vendor urged before me that the lower Court had given the vendee even two kalams erroneously, and that it should have found a "different intention" necessarily implied at the time of the sale and dismissed the suit in toto. I cannot agree. Firstly, the vendor has acquiesced in the lower Court's order and has not filed a civil revision petition himself. Secondly, the vendee, admittedly, did not tell the vendor that he would not claim any part of the paddy or rent. So there was no understanding or agreement about it. In the lower Court, the vendee claimed the entire rent as his, or, in the alternative, at least 7 kalams of paddy, as offered by the vendor in his reply notice. The lower Court held that there was no "different intention" expressed, or necessarily implied, under Section 8, and that, as the property sold was land, the vendee would be entitled, under Section 8, to the rents and profits accruing from the land after the transfer. To find out what would be the rent or profits from the land accruing after the sale, the lower Court applied Section 36, T. P. Act relying on the ruling in Nand Kishore v Ram Sarup, 50 ALL. 18 : (A.I.R. (14) 1927 ALL. 569), and, as there was no contract or local usage to the contrary, it held that the rent accrued between the transferor and the transferee from day to day and gave the petitioner two kalams of paddy, being one month's rent out of the year's rent payable, and decreed the suit to that extent with proportionate costs dismissed the remainder of the suit with the costs of defendant 1. It rejected the vendor's contention that an intention on the part of the vendee not to claim any portion of the rent must necessarily be implied under Section 8 by his calculating the purchase price only on the price of the land (at Rs. 23 or so a cent) and not taking into account the rent or any portion of it. It also rejected the vendee's contention that the vendor's offer of 7 kalams in his reply notice showed or implied an intention to pay him at) least 7 kalams due by the date of the sale. The plaintiff has filed this revision petition. As already stated, the vendor has not filed any revision petition. Nor has defendant 2.

(3.) I have perused the entire records, and heard the learned counsel on both sides. Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar, the counsel for the petitioner, frankly admitted that there was no "different intention" regarding the paddy crop standing on the land or the rent due for it at the time of the sale. He also, of course, supported the lower Court's finding that no different intention could also be necessarily implied in the circumstances of the case. But he contended that, even so, under Section 8, T. P. Act, all the interest which the transferor was then capable of passing in the property would pass to the transferee, and that this would entitle the plaintiff to the whole year's rent, or at least to the 7 kalams remaining due at the sale. He also said that Section 30, T. P. Act would not apply to agricultural crops or rents, as they do not accrue from day to day. Indeed, he went to the extreme length of contending that all interest which the transferor was then capable of passing in the property would automatically pass to the transferee forthwith, and urged that even if three years' rent was in arrears, at the time of the sale, the transferee would be entitled to it. I am unable to agree with this contention. Rents and profits accruing due before the transfer are not legal incidents of the property transferred. See Bhogilal v. Jethalal, A. I. R. (16) 1929 Bom. 51 : (114 I. C. 262); Ganeshlal Tewari v. Shamnarain, 6 Cal 213; Muthu Hengsu v. Netravati Naiksavi, 58 I. C. 383 : (A. I. R. (7) 1920 Mad. 386) and Chandrasekharalingam v. Nagabhushanam, 53 M. L. J. 342 : (A. I. R. (14) 1927 Mad. 817). Such arrears of rents are a debt or actionable claim, and, if they are to be transferred, must be assigned separately. See Sheogobind Singh v. Gowri Prasad, 4 Pat. 43 : (A. I. R. (12) 1925 Pat. 310).