GODAVARTI RAJA Vs. UTTARADI MATAM SRI RAMACHANDRASWAMI VARU REPRESENTED BY THE TRUSTEE SRI SRI SATYADHAYANA THEERTHA SWAMULAVARU, SINCE DECEASED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (C. R. P. Nos. 2392 of 1939 and 1647 of 1940). These two civil revision petitions arise out of applications under Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938 with reference to the same land. The amount due on this land is due under a decree for mesne profits. It seems to us quite clear that a decree for mesne profits passed by a Civil Court in a suit for ejectment is not a decree for rent within the meaning of Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938; and the fact that at a date subsequent to the passing of this decree the village in which this land is situate has become an estate under the amended Madras Estates Land Act will not alter the character of the decree already passed--vide Narayana Gajapati Raju V/s. Narasimhulu (1942) 2 M.L.J. 359.

(2.) The civil revision petitions are therefore allowed with costs and the order of the learned Deputy Collector is set aside.

(3.) (G. R. Ps. Nos. 2393 of 1939 and 1641 of 1940).--These two revision petitions arise out of successive applications made under Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938, in respect of the same land. The deposit for fasli 1347 was a sum of Rs. 211-8-0. The deposit for fasli 1346 was a sum of Rs. 282 which appears to be the net rent according to the agreement. By the terms of the agreement, the rent carries interest at 12 per cent. Whether or not this agreement would be effective after the land becomes part of an estate under the amended Madras Estates Land Act, it is clear that interest under Section 61 of the Madras Estates Land Act, was payable as part of the rent which was in arrears. Admittedly no interest whatever has been deposited. The deposit made in the Revenue Court was, therefore, not a deposit of the whole of the rent for either of these two faslis.