PUNYAM RANGASWAMI REDDI Vs. GALI GOPALAKRISHNA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this Civil Revision Petition is whether, having regard to the terms of Proviso D to Section 3(ii) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, the petitioner is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner owns the kudivaram interest in certain lands in the village of Kolathur, which is an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, paying a peishcush of Rs. 1,200. Some years ago he purchased the zamin rights of the estate and in 1927 he was recognised by the Collector as the landholder. In 1934 he executed two usufructuary mortgages, each covering one moiety of the zamin right in the estate. He retained his ryoti lands and thus became the tenant of his mortgagees in respect of those lands. In 1935 the respondent (one of the mortgagees) applied to the Collector for recognition ? as the landholder of the estate. His application was opposed by the mortgagees of the other half of the zamin and the petitioner was also a party to the proceedings. The Collector recognised the respondent as the landholder, holding that the petitioner was no longer entitled to collect the rents and that the respondent was entitled to a larger share of the income than either of the mortgagees of the other half. The question is whether in view of this order, the petitioner can be deemed to be a landholder of an estate in respect of which a sum exceeding Rs. 500 is paid as peishcush. The lower Court held that he was a landholder and therefore disentitled to the benefits conferred on agriculturists by Section 15 of Act IV of 1938.

(2.) The question is by no means free from difficulty. Proviso D to Section 3(ii) excludes from the category of agriculturists any person who "is a landholder of an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, or of a share or portion thereof in respect of which estate, share or portion any sum exceeding Rs. 500 is paid as peishcush..." The exclusion of a landholder of a share or portion of an estate paying a peishcush exceeding Rs. 500 seems to indicate that the Legislature had in mind the qualification of ownership of the zamin interest rather than the qualification of recognition by the Collector. But the definition of a landholder in the Estates Land Act as a person. owning an estate or a part thereof or entitled to collect the rents of a whole or any portion of the estate, has the following subsidiary clause: Where there is a dispute between two or more persons as to which of them is the landholder for all or any of the purposes of this Act or between two or more joint landholders as to which of them is entitled to proceed and be dealt with as such landholder, the person who shall be deemed to be the landholder for such purposes shall be the person whom the Collector subject to any decree or order of a competent Civil Court may recognize or nominate as such landholder in accordance with rules to be framed by the local Government in this behalf.

(3.) One of the rules framed under this section provides that where two landholders have equal claims to recognition, the Collector shall recognize the more competent.