KESARI GURUMURTHY SASTRY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal on his behalf arises out of a suit filed by him against the Government for recovery of Rs. 3,543-1-4 with subsequent interest and costs. His case was that he was one of the shotriemdars and share-holders in the Theepanur Shrotriem in Gudur taluk, Nellore district, and was entitled to three-fourths share. The Government took over the village under the Estates Abolition Act. He had to get arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 4,500 towards his three-fourths share from several tenants of the village before the village was taken over for faslis 1351 to 1356. His further case was that he filed several rent suits before the Sub-Collector and had obtained decrees and some rent suits were still pending, but after the passing of the Estates Abolition Act and the taking over of the village, the Sub-Collector, Gudur, stayed the proceedings in all pending suits and the execution of the decrees pending fixation of the fair rent.

(2.) The Government reduced the rate of rent payable on Theepanur under the Estates Abolition Act and Rent Reduction Act. The Government was bound to collect the same from the tenants on his three-foucths share and on demand by him the said amount has not been paid. The defence taken by the Government was that the Theepanur Shrotriem was notified as an estate and the Government took over the same from the landholders on ist October, 1951, but it was handed over to the landholders on the same day as the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the orders of Settlement Officer, Nellore, declaring the Theepanur Shrotriem as an estate was before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaram, and that as the estate was not taken over between ist October, 1951 and iath October, 1952, it could not collect the arrears of rent, It was further averred that the plaint allegation that the Sub-Collector, Gudur, stayed the suits and decrees and prevented the "plaintiff from collecting the rent from the ryots was misleading since his appeal, A.S.No. 53 of 1951, against the decision of the Settlement Officer was pending as the ryots in the suits and execution petitions 'were contending that Theepanur was an inam estate and that they were entitled to protection under section 55 (1), Provisos (a) and (b) of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act and in view of that litigation, suits and execution petitions could not be proceeded with till the disposal of the appeal. It was also averred that the Sub-Collector addressed his superior officers as to what he should do in regard to the said suits and execution petitions and the matter was pending with the Government till aoth June, 1952, by which time the appeal filed by the plaintiff was disposed of and after the disposal of the appeal the compensation payable was deposited on or about 18th November, 1952; When the Government was considering whether Theepanur should be deemed to have been taken on 1st October, 1951 or isth October, 1952, the plain tiff, gave a registered notice on 12th June, 1954, to which a reply was sent by the District Collector'on17th june, 1955, informing him that the Board of Revenue was addressed in the matter and necessary action for collection of arrears would be taken on receipt of instructions from them. The liability of the Government to pay arises only after the arrears are collected subject to Proviso in section 55 of the Act. It was also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 2,503-1-4 and costs. The learned District Munsif who enquired into the suit held that the suit was premature and dismissed the same.

(3.) On appeal by the plaintiff, the appellate Court agreed with the view of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this Second Appeal. In this appeal, it is contended by Sri Gangadhara Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant that under section 55 (i) of the Estates Abolition Act, it is the Government who is entitled to collect rents accrued due to the landholder from any ryot after the notified date and it was not correct to say that the Government was not liable to account for arrears and the liability only depended on the Government collecting the rent. Sri Sankar Rao, the Government Pleader, contended that both the Courts have rightly held that the suit was premature and that the Government was not liable to account until the rent was collected. Assuming, the learned counsel urged, that the Government was liable to collect the rents, since no rent has been collected the plaintiff has no cause of action against the Government. Relying on T.K. Ammal v. Corporation of Madras,A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 671. it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that when it is admitted by the plaintiff himself that he had filed suits against the tenants and has obtained decrees he could proceed with the suits and recover the amounts and cannot claim any amount from the Government.