RAJAH SIR S R M ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR BY HIS AUTHORISED AGENT T DHANAPALA CHETTIAR Vs. SRI RAMA NARASIMHULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are connected second appeals arising out of two suits filed by two ryots against the landholder for grant of patta under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act for fasli 1336.

(2.) The main point argued is, whether the plaintiffs have effected any improvements at their sole expense within the meaning of Section 13, Clause (3) of the said Act in some of the dry lands in question, and whether the landholder can charge rent according to crop-war rates and second crop rates prevailing in the village, although crops of a superior nature, such as garden and wet crops raised on such dry lands, were the result of those improvements. According to the findings of the Lower Courts, it is clear that these lands are classified as dry, that though they were originally poramboke, they have become patta lands of the plaintiffs, that the improvements effected by the ryots (plaintiffs) consist of wells sunk in their patta lands at their own cost, subsequent to the passing of the Estates Land Act, and that before the sinking of these wells, only ordinary dry crops could be raised on these lands. It is admitted that the usage in this village is to levy crop-war rates of rent, which depend upon the nature of the crop raised and the extent of land actually cultivated. As would appear from the pattas filed (for instance, Clause (10) of the patta, Ex. C) no rent would be charged on lands left waste or uncultivated, unless the non-cultivation is due to the neglect of the ryot.

(3.) In the light of these facts, the question at issue has to be determined. Section 13, Clause (3) declares, that notwithstanding any usage or contract to the contrary, a ryot shall not by reason of making an improvement at his sole expense, become liable to pay a higher rate of rent on account of any increase of production or of any change in the nature of the crop raised as a consequence of such improvement. In the present case, there is no doubt that the wells sunk by the ryots in their patta lands for the supply of water for agricultural purposes would be an improvement within the meaning of Section 3(4) of the Act. These wells are not shown to prejudicially affect any other land of the landholder. Nor is it the case of the defendant that any money was contributed by him for the expenses of sinking these wells.