THE MADURA SRI MEENAKSHI SUNDARESWARAL, ETC., DEVASTHANAMS, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. SELLATHAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was one against the defendant for arrears of rent, claiming at the rate of the full taram assessment on the defendant's lands. The defendant resisted the claim and asserted that his predecessors -in -title from time immemorial had been paying rent at only one -fifth of the taram assessment and that any demand for an enhanced rent such as is claimed in the suit would be an illegal one. A further question was raised whether the defendant is a ryot. It was conceded in the lower appellate Court and is here - -that she is. The learned Deputy Collector, after giving a finding that the defendant is a ryot, went on to analyse the documents; and concluding very briefly with a summary of Section 24 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which prevents the landholder from enhancing the rent, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim rent at the full taram assessment. The evidence let in afforded very little material upon which the Courts could judge the reasonableness or otherwise of the plaintiff's claim. The defendant had been paying rent at the full taram assessment from 1930 onwards; but from 1904 -1905, his predecessors -in -title had been paying only at about one -fifth of the taram rate. There is no evidence to show why the predecessors -in -title of the defendant had been paying such a low rate of rent, and so it is not surprising that the Deputy Collector did not devote very much attention to discussing the conclusions that had to be drawn from such meagre evidence. The learned District Judge felt that same difficulty; and his judgment is a very short one. He, too, briefly analysed the evidence, pointing out that the lower rate of rent had been paid from 1930. He then went on to say:

(2.) HE therefore agreed with the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) THE learned District Judge seems to be wrong in saying that Section 26(3) could not be applied to a Devasthanam, on the ground that the Devasthanam has; always been, and still is, the landholder. A landholder, according to Section 3(5) includes,