NARAYANASAMI REDDY Vs. VEERASAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this revision petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of an agriculturist, having regard to the terms of Proviso (D) to Section 3 (ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938.

(2.) The petitioner was at the time of his application the landholder of more than one estate. The total peshkush payable in respect of these estates exceeded Rs. 500, but no one of the estates paid so much as Rs. 500 peshkush. Petitioner contends therefore that he is not the landholder of an estate in respect of which estate a sum exceeding Rs. 500 is paid as peshkush. We are unable to accept this contention. Reading the definition along with Section 3(35) of the Madras General Clauses Act, we must hold that the definition is to be read as covering a landholder of an estate or estates, in respect of which estate or estates a sum exceeding Rs. 500 is paid as peshkush. That is the view taken by the Court below.

(3.) It is also suggested that the petitioner comes within the definition of agriculturist because in one of the estates standing in his name he is not the real owner. We cannot accept this contention. A landholder under Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act is a person owning an estate and includes every person entitled to collect the rents of the estate. There is no doubt that in respect of the estate which was purchased in Court auction in the name, of the applicant, he was either the owner or the person entitled to collect the rents.