S. RAMASWAMY IYER Vs. SENDHIL TIRUPPANI KATTALAI ATTACHED TO SRI SUBRAMANIASWAMI KOIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE SRI LA SRI SUBRAMANIA AMBALAVANA PANDARA SANNADHI AVARGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the -petitioner. The plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 671.19 due as per the lease deed dated 1st July, 1961, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with subsequent interest and costs. The plaintiff's case is that the suit properties, namely, survey fields 92 and 94 measuring 8 acres 80 cents and 8 acres 41 cents respectively and situate at Veerapandiapattinam, belong to the plaintiff, that the defendant took them, on lease from the plaintiff agreeing to pay an annual rent of Rs. 223.73. and executed a lease deed dated 1st July, 1961, for a period of five years commencing from fasli 1371 ending with fasli, 1375 ,that the defendant enjoyed the suit lands for the said period but failed to pay the rent except the advance which was paid at the time of execution of the lease, that the plaintiff issued a notice dated 9th November,. 1965, demanding the arrears of rent, that the defendant sent a reply dated 20th November, 1965 containing false and frivolous allegations, and that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount after adjusting the advance paid by the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant filed a written statement admitting execution of the lease deed agreeing to pay an annual rent of Rs. 273.73. But the main defence is that the plaintiff's agent promised to identify, measure and deliver the suit lands to him, but that he failed to do so and that, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the rent since the lease has not been acted upon. 'The further contention raised is that; as the lease deed is for a period five years and as it has not been registered, it is not valid and is inadmissible in evidence. The defendant contends that the plaintiff is bound to refund the advance paid and that he will file a separate suit for recovery of the same.

(3.) THE main contention raised in this revision petition is that the lease deed Exhibit A -1 for a period of 5 years not having been registered, is inadmissible in evidence and no suit can be based upon the same. The lands in question belong to Sendhil Tiruppani Kattalai attached to Sri Subramaniasami Koil, Tiruchendur, and the Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural lands) Act, 1961, is applicable to the lands in question. The Act came into force on 2nd October, 1962. Under Section 4 of the Act, on and after the date of the commencement of the Act, no public trust shall personally cultivate or lease out land held by such trust except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 5(1) states that except as otherwise provided in the Act no public trust shall personally cultivate land in excess of twenty standard acres. Under Section 2(7) "date of the commencement of the Act" means the date appointed by the Government under Sub -section (3) of the section, namely, 2nd October, 1962. Section 2(5) defines cultivating tenant as meaning a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement and the provisions of the Section have to be complied with in respect of tenancy agreements entered into after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the question that arises in this case is whether the lease deed dated 1st July, 1961, and executed prior to the coming into force of the Act, has to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. Under Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, agricultural leases are exempted from the provisions of Chapter V of the Act. But when they are in writing Section 17(1) (d) of the Registration Act, 1908 will be attracted.