S.K. KADIRVELSAMI NAICKER BY HIS AUTHORISED AGENT, C. CHOCKALINGAM PILLAI Vs. S.P. SULTAN AHMED BADRUDDIN ROWTHER (DIED) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the zamindar of Yerasackanaickanoor. He brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul to recover from the respondents the amount of Rs. 10,637 -6 -3, which he claimed to be due to him by way of rent under a lease dated the 16th December, 1930. The lease was granted by the plaintiff's prede -cessor -in -title for the purpose of cardamom cultivation. It was for a period of fifteen years and covered 475 acres of forest land, all of which fell within the boundaries of the zamindary. The defendants took exception to the jurisdiction of the Court. They claimed that they were entitled to permanent rights of occupancy in respect of the whole area covered by the lease and consequently the Revenue Court alone had jurisdiction. The plaintiff maintained that he was entitled to sue in the Civil Court because cardamom cultivation was not agriculture within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. He also said that 125 acres were pannai lands, which meant that in any event he had the right to sue in the Civil Court to recover a proportionate amount of the arrears of rent. The learned Subordinate Judge held that cardamom cultivation was agriculture within the definition given in the statute, but he allowed the plaintiff's claim that 125 acres of the 475 acres represented pannai lands. Therefore the suit lay in the Subordinate Court to recover a proportionate amount of the arrears, but the Subordinate Judge dismissed it in its entirety on the ground that the plaintiff had not attempted to differentiate between the pannai lands and the other lands in his plaint. He did recognise that the plaintiff was entitled to sue in the Civil Court in respect of the pannai lands, but he thought that in the circumstances, the plaintiff should be relegated to a separate suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff has appealed. In the first place he says that the Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the cardamom cultivation is agriculture within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act and in the second place he says that he should have been given a decree for the arrears of rent due in respect of the 125 acres of pannai lands. Both sides have accepted the finding that 125 of the 475 acres represent pannai lands.

(3.) IN support of his argument that cardamom cultivation is not agriculture, Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar has laid stress on the decision of this Court in Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamigal v. : AIR1931Mad659 and the judgment of the Privy Council in Kesho Prasad Singh v. Sheo Pragash Ojha, (1924) 47 M.L.J. 824 :, L.R. 51 IndAp 381 :, I.L.R. 46 All. 831 (P.C.).