B PERRAJU GARU Vs. BSUBBARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the ijaradar of a share of the village of Karapa situated within the limits of the Pittapur estate for the recovery of cist, local cess and village cess due by the defendant who is one of the ryots cultivating land in the village. The suit was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that there was no agreement; to dispense with pattas and muchilikas, it being admitted that there was no exchange of pattas and muchilikas so far as the cist was concerned. With respect to the cesses alleged to be due from the defendant the lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, its jurisdiction being excluded by Article 13 of the schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The finding against the agreement to dispense with pattas and muchilikas being one of fact, could not be, and has not been contested before me, But the District Munsif appears to be wrong in supposing that a suit in a Small Cause Court for rent would be unsustainable under the present law on the ground that there was no exchange of pattas and muchilikas. This was no doubt the rule under Section 7 of Act VIII of 1865. But the Estates. Land Act has altered the law on the subject. Section 53 of that Act lays down that "a landholder shall have no power to proceed against a ryot for the recovery of the rent by distraint and sale of his moveable property or by sale of his holding unless he shall have exchanged a patta and muchilika with such ryot," etc. But no such rule is enacted with respect to the recovery of the rent by a suit.

(2.) The District Munsif has overlooked another matter of importance in this case. The plaintiff as ijaradar comes within the definition of land holder in Section 3(5) of the Estates Land Act, as the definition includes, "every person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate by virtue of any transfer from the owner or his predecessor in title," and the word rent is defined so as to include "any local tax, cess, fee or sum payable by a ryot as such in addition to the rent due in respect of land according to law or usage having the force of law, and also money recoverable under any enactment for the time being in force as if it was rent." Section 189 of the Act read with Schedule A, Article 8, puts the plaintiff out of a Small Cause Court with respect to the whole of his claim which is composed partly of cist and partly of cesses--all of which are comprehended within the definition of rent.

(3.) The plaint must there fore be returned for presentation to the proper Court.