BOMMADEVARA NAGANNA NAIDU Vs. RAVI VENKATAPPAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the Zemindars of North Vallur Estate in Kiatna district, and the respondents are the occupancy tenants of certain villages in the said estate.

(2.) In 1904 the Zemindar, father of the appellants, brought before the Court of the Head Assistant Collector of the Bezwada Division Kistna district, forty-nine summary suits under Section 9 of the Madras Rent Recovery Act, 1865, against the respondent raiyats to enforce the acceptance by them of pattas or leases of Faslis 1314 and 1315 (1904 and 1905) which had been tendered to them. The Zemindar demanded asara or varam rates for wet lands. The tenants on the other hand denied the claim of the Zemindar, pleading that certain rates had been fixed in Fasli 1202 (1882), which were alone recoverable and not the asara or varam rates (produce sharing system) demanded by the Zemindar. The suits were dismissed by the Head Assistant Collector, Bezwada Division, finding as a fact that the conversion of the asara rates into cash payment in 1283 Fasli, which was confirmed in 1292 Fasli, and had been acted upon ever since, was a permanent arrangement, and that the plaintiff (the said Zemindar) was not therefore entitled to impose on the tenants pattas on the asara basis. On appeal by the Zemindar, the District Judge affirmed the decrees of the Collector in respect of the finding of fact relative to the character of the arrangement of 1283 Fasli, and upheld the orders dismissing the suits, On further appeal to the High Court of Madras, the High Court set aside the orders of the lower Courts, holding that "the pattas tendered by the plaintiff were proper pattas, and that the defendants must accept them."

(3.) The tenants, thereupon, appealed from the judgment of the High Court to His Majesty in Council, and on June 18, 1914 the Lords of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council set aside the judgments and decrees of the High Court on the ground that as there were concurrent findings of fact in Courts below, an appeal to the High Court was precluded by the Civil P. C., Secs.584 and 585. Their Lordships, however, ordered that the cases should be sent back to be remitted to the Court of the Collector for the drawing up of proper decrees and dealing with any other questions that might be outstanding in these actions between the parties. The case before this Board is reported in L. Rule 41 I. A. 258, where the facts outlined above are more fully stated. Meanwhile during the pendency of the said appeal to His Majesty in Council the Zemindar instituted similar suits for arrears of rent in respect of 1316 Fasli to 1822 Fasli under Section 77 of Madras Act I of 1908, and decrees were made against the tenants, all of which, except those of 1322 Fasli, were realised in execution. No application was made for stay of trial of any of the suits pending the disposal of the appeal to this Board. The matters for determination in the present consolidated decrees raise questions as to the effect, if any, of the decision of this Board of June 18, 1914, on the subsequent judgments and execution thereunder.