RAJA OF VIZIALAGARAM Vs. POTTA VEERABADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit under appeal is brought for recovery of appears 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.

(2.) The land originally belonged to some Kondadoras. Originally they had 87 cents of dry and 3 acres of wet land but it was found on a re-survey and Settlement in 1901-3 and 1906 that they were actually in possession of 14-88 acres 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, of the Madras Estates Land Act to contest the right of sale of the Vizianagaram 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 of Potta Gangarazu set aside and declared illegal and invalid. This suit also was dismissed. In 1926 the lands were sold to the present defendants.

(3.) When the wet lands were granted on patta to Potta Gangarazu the patta and muchilika, which were Exs. I and B respectively set out the rent as Rs. 282-10-0 from which was subtracted beriz deductions of Rs. 56, and the muchilika describes the nett amount of Rs. 224-8-0 as 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 Kondadaras, 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 Clause (1) of Section 26, of the 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 muckilika 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. VI, 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 been 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 beriz deduction while it is said in the written statement that such perpetual deduction was allowed apart from service which is extinct.