BAMMID1 BAYYA NAIDU Vs. BAMMIOI PARADESI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, a landholder to whom the provisions of section f3 of Madras Act VIII of 1865 apply sues the defendant?, his tenants, for rent for fasli 1316. Under Section 7 of the abovementioned Act, no suit brought to enforce the barms of a tenancy, shall be sustainable unless patta and muehilika have been exchanged, or unless it be proved that the party attempting to enforce the contract had tendered such a patta or muchilika as the other party was bound to accept, or unless both parties shall have agreed to dispense with pattas and muchilika. Under Section 4 of the Act the patta must contain, among other things, the local description and extent of the laud. The putta, in the present suit gives the extent and boundaries of the land alleged by the plaintiff to be in the defendants occupation. The defendants alleged-that the extent of jeroyiti land entered in the patta was greater than the extent of such land held by them. The plaintiff contended that the matter was res judicata by reason of the decision in a similar suit by him against the defendants for the rent of two previous faslies. The pattas in that suit were similar to the patia in the present suit. In the former suit the plaintiff alleged tender of pattns and refusal by the defendant, but the defendants contended that the plaintiff did not tender pattas for the suit faslies and that the pattas alleged to have been tendered were improper, one of the objections taken to the propriety of the pattas being that the extent of the defendants jeroyiti and was much overstated. In this state of the pleadings it was incumbent upon the plaintiff under Section 7 of Act VIII of 1865 to prove the tender of such pattas as the defendants were bound to accept. An issue was accordingly framed as to the tender and propriety of the pastas, and was found in the affirmative. Had it boon found in the negative, the plaintiff s suit must have been dismissed. In the present suit an issue as to the tender and propriety of patta also necessarily arises. The patta being similar to the pattas in the previous suit and no change of circumstances being alleged, I think the plaintiff s contention should have boon upheld. The finding in the previous suit that the pattas ward proper, i.e., that they wore such as defendants were bound to accept, was a finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the land entered in the pattas, and I do not think the defendants can again be allowed to put the plaintiff to proof of his title. See Venkatachalapati v. Krishna (1890) I.L.R., 13 Mad., 287. I would therefore allow the appeal.

(2.) As my learned brother takes the contrary view, the second appeal is dismissed with costs. Sankaran-Nair, J.

(3.) This suit is brought by the plaintiff to recover rent due for fasli 1316 from the defendants who are tenants in possession of certain lands which the plaintiff says are held under him. The plaintiff states that he tendered a proper patta to the first defendant according to which the first defendant was bound to properly cultivate and raise crops in about 14 acres of land in the village of Jayakrishnapuram and pay the landlord s share. The main contention of the defendants is that the defendants hold about 5 acres of land under the plaintiff and that of the rest, about 10 acres are inam lands and 3 acres are cash rent paying lands belonging to the defendants themselves Both the lower Courts have upheld the defendants contention. In fact the Judge states that the plaintiff did not seriously argue before him that the patta was a proper one, or that the lands which were found by the Munsif for belong to the defendant really belonged to the plaintiff, The question that was argued before us at great length is whether the defendants are barred from raising this plea by the decision in a previous suit: