RAJAH OF VIZIANAGARAM Vs. PETTA VEERABADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit under appeal is brought for recovery of arrears of rent due on a certain patta. The question in issue is what is the proper amount that the defendants should pay." According to the plaintiff it should be Rs 282,10-0 but the defendants claim that they are entitled to beriz, deductions of Rs. 56 so that they should only have to pay Rs. 226-10-0 and that, that is really the proper rent. The land originally belonged to some Kondadoras. Originally they had 87 cents of dry and three acres of wet land but it was found on a re-survey and settlement in 1901-03 and 1906 that they were actually in possession of 14 88 aores of dry and 68 acres of wet. They were given, and accepted, a patta for these lands for a rental of Rs. 292-1-8. They did not pay the rent at any rate in full, and the lands were brought to sale. They brought a suit under Section 112, Madras Estates Land Act to contest the right of sale of the Vizia-nagaram Estate, but the suit was dismissed. Then the Estate bought the lands and granted the wet portion of them on patta to Potta Gangarazu. Another suit, this time in the Court of the District Judge of Vizagapatam, was. brought by the Kondadoras to have the sale of the lands and delivery to Potta Gangarazu set aside and declared illegal and invalid. This suit also was dismissed. In 1926 :;he lands were sold to the present defendants.

(2.) When the wet lands were granted on patta to Potta Gangarazu the patta and muohilika, which are Exs. I and B, respectively set out the rent as Rs. 282-10-0 from which was subtracted a beriz, deduction of Ra. 56 and the muchilika describes the net amount of Rs. 224-8-0 a3 the amount settled to be paid. In the patta the amount less beriz, deduction is given as Rs. 226.10-0, but no importance appears to attach to this slight variation. Previously, in the time of the Kondadoras, there had been a beriz, deduction of Rs. 60, but as Gangarazu only took the wet lands there was a proportionate reduction both of the total amount of rent and in the amount of beriz, deduction. The plaintiff claims that by allowing the beriz, deduction his predecessor allowed the suit lands to be held for a rent lower than the lawful rate previously payable on them and that, as that lower rate was not allowed for any of the purposes stated in 01. (1), Section 26 Madras Estates Land Act, he is entitled to claim the full lawful rate of Rs. 282.10-0. It is pointed out that in Ex. A, the muohilika executed by the Kondadoras in 1912 the rent of the entire land is stated to be Rs. 292-1-8 and nothing whatever is said as to any beriz deduction. That however there was such a deduction is clear from Ex. 6, the judgment of the Honorary Deputy Collector of Vizagapatam in the earlier of the two suits brought by the Kondadoras. The arrears of rent that were then sued for, came only to Rs. 255.3-3 and the dispute was not as to whether or no there should be any beriz deduction but as to whether the Kondadoras should pay an extra amount for the extra extent of land that they had been found to occupy or should pay as they had bean paying in times past. It appears from the decision of the Deputy Collector that they were entitled to beriz deduction. In the course of his judgment the Deputy Collector has thus stated: The patta is silent on the grant of barlz deduction while it is said in the written statement that such perpetual deduction was allowed apart from service which is extinct.

(3.) The learned Judge on first appeal has attached much importance to this citation from the written statement put in on behalf of the estate, and has held on account of it, and because the full rent as shown in Ex. A has never been paid, that the rent has been fixed by contract at a lower figure, that is, with the beriz deduction taken from it and that it is payable in perpetuity by contract at that figure. Though however that admission is of importance I do not think that it is altogether conclusive as against the plaintiff. The question of whether or no there should be a beriz deduction was not before the Deputy Collector. All he had to decide was whether the claim of the estate for more than they had been getting before, allowing for the beriz deduction, could be allowed. Other points have to be considered. From the judgment of the District Judge of Vizagapatam in the latter suit gather that the Kondadoras had regarded, though not correctly, their lands as service lands. They had rendered some service to the E3tate for which they were given an allowance and for convenience the amount of the allowance was deducted from the amount of the rent which they had to pay just by way of adjustments. This deduction appears to have bean allowed to continue even after the service came to an end; and as far as I can gather though is only a matter of inference, it appears to have been one that was allowed to them in their personal capacity. At any rate, after their land had been sold and there was a question of who should be the new tenant, it was not deemed a-matter of course that there should be a beriz, deduction.