RAJAYYA NANDIAR Vs. LAXMANA AYYAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suits giving rise to these two second appeals were filed under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act to compel the defendants to issue pattas to the appellant who was the plaintiff in the trial Court. His suits were dismissed by both the lower Courts and hence the second appeals. The appellant's case is that Mahalinga Iyer who was the owner of a half share in the village of Kilayur leased certain lands to him and that he has been enjoying these lands as lessee for nearly 25 years before suit. He therefore acquired occupancy rights and as a ryot he filed the two suits under Section 55 of the Act to compel the landholder to issue a patta to him.

(2.) THE defence is that the appellant was not a ryot of the lands involved in these two suits and that further they are the private lands of the respondent. On both the points, the lower Courts held against the appellant. These suits were tried along with three other suits which gave rise to second appeals Nos. 971, 974 and 977 of 1944 which we have disposed of today. Considerable confusion has arisen by the fact that all the suits were tried together. The appellant supported the case of the plaintiffs in the other suits and was examined as P.W. 2. In his evidence he merely referred to Exs. M to Y -1 and stated that Ex. M was a letter written to him by Mahalinga Ayyar in 1931, that Ex. N was a similar letter of 1932, that Ex. O series five in number were of 1933, Exs. P and P -1 were of 1934, Ex. Q and Q -1 of 1935, Ex.R to R -4 of the year 1936, S to S -5 of 1937, T and T -1 of 1938, U to U -2 of 1939 and W and W -1 of the year 1940. Ex. Y and Y -1 are the suit notices that were given by the appellant one to Lakshmana Iyer and the other to one Srinivasa Iyer. Beyond the reference to these documents in the way just set out, the appellant as P.W. 2 merely stated that he has been in enjoyment of the suit lands as a lessee for 25 or 26 years. The trouble is that a mere perusal of these documents do not show that they refer to the lands in Kilayur and much less to the lands involved in these two suits. The appellant was admittedly the lessee of Mahalinga Iyer of lands situated in other villages. Mahalinga Iyer apparently owned certain lands in Umayalpuram and in some other villages. The appellant was a lessee of Mahalinga Iyer's lands in other villages as well. In fact Ex. S -2 shows that in respect of Umayalpuram lands held under Mahalinga Iyer the appellant had to pay a rent of 60 kalams of paddy. The appellant and his advisers seem to have overlooked the necessity of connecting these documents with the lands in suit which are situated in Kilayur. The lower Courts were not satisfied that these letters really refer to suit lands. If that conclusion is accepted there is an end of the appellant's case.

(3.) PAUSING here if a particular land was shown to be the domain or homefarm land of the landholder known as kambhattam, khas, sir or pannai, it was at the absolute disposal of the landholder. Even if it was not shown to be such land if the landholder had cultivated the land himself by his own servants or by hired labour for twelve years immediately prior to the commencement of the Act, i.e., prior to the first July, 1908, the lands should be deemed to be private land in which the tenants got no occupancy rights. In addition to these two categories, the legislature enacted in Section 185 that if certain lands were let specifically as private land before the first July, 1898, that fact might be taken into consideration along with any other evidence. Regard was also to be had to the local custom. In the case of an estate under Section 3(2)(d), there was the further provision enacted in the exception to Section 8 that where the inamdar acquired the kudivaram whether before or after the Act he was the absolute owner of those lands; in fact those lands ceased to form part of the estate. We had thus to go to several sections to determine whether a tenant let into possession of a certain land was entitled to an occupancy right therein.