SREE RAJAH VATCHAVAYA VENKATASURYANARAYANA JAGAPATHIRAJU BAHADUR ZAMINDAR GARU Vs. MADDUKURI TIRUPATAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the Zamindar of Tuni and sued in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Peddapuram to recover from the respondents in this appeal what he had been compelled to pay by way of cess under the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, in respect of faslis 1338 to 1343. The respondents are darmilla inamdars, or under-tenure-holders, within the zamindari. They contested the right of the appellant to sue for more than what he had paid in respect of the last three faslis. Their contention was that as the appellant in suing in the Revenue Court had called in aid the Madras Estates Land Act he could not recover for more than three years. This contention was accepted by the Deputy Collector, by the District Judge of East Godavari on first appeal and by Wadsworth, J., on second appeal. This appeal is from the judgment of Wadsworth, J., who gave the necessary certificate under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) By virtue of Section 88 of the Madras Local Boards Act, the appellant has the right to recover from the respondents the amounts which he claimed, and if he had instituted the suit in the Civil Court it is not contested that he would have been entitled to a decree for what he had paid by way of cess during the six years preceding the suit. In Raja of Vizianagaram V/s. Thammanna , a Full Bench of this Court held that a suit which had been filed in a Civil Court to recover cesses under the Madras Local Boards Act was governed by Art : 120 of the Limitation Act. The respondents rely however, on the provisions of Section 89 of the Act. That section says: Every landholder, sub-landholder or any other intermediate landholder, as the case may be, shall, in recovering any amount which may be due to him under the provisos to Section 88, be entitled to exercise the same powers as may, under any Act or Regulation which now is, or hereafter may be, in force, be exercised by any landholder in the recovery of rent, and shall be liable to all the penalties prescribed therein for the abuse of such powers. Explanation. A landholder or sub-landholder shall, in recovering the amount due to him, under the first proviso to Section 88 from the intermediate landholder referred to herein, be entitled to exercise the powers and be subject to the penalties specified in this section, as if the intermediate landholder were a ryot with whom a patta and muchilika had been exchanged and the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, shall, so far as may be, be applicable thereto.

(3.) By reason of this section the appellant is given the right, if he so chooses, to use the same machinery as a landholder is allowed to use for recovering arrears of rent from a ryot.