(CHENNURI) APPALANARASIAH CHETTY GARU Vs. MAKKA CHITTAVADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rent at one time payable on the suit lands was Rs. 132-3-6. In Fasli 1334 the defendant executed a muchilika agreeing to pay increased rent (the increase being at the rate of 2 as. per rupee), on the understanding that the plaintiff would repair his irrigation sources. The rent at the increased rate would amount to Rs. 148-12-1. The finding is, that the defendant executed the muchilika voluntarily and received, better irrigation facilities in return for the enhanced rent. The defendant urges that the agreement to pay increased; rent is not enforceable, being opposed to : Section 24, Madras Estates Land Act. Both the lower Courts have held that this contention must be upheld and in my opinion rightly. Section 24 says, "the rent of a raiyat shall not be enhanced except as provided by this Act." That shows that we must turn to the provisions of the Act to ascertain what course it prescribes for getting the rent enhanced. Section 30 enacts that a landholder may for that purpose file a suit before the Col-lector. Among the grounds available to him in such a suit it mentioned that during the currency of the existing rent the productive powers of the land held by the raijat have been increased by an improvement effected by, or at the expense of, the landholder.

(2.) The case directly falls within this section. The rent is, in the present case, enhanced on the ground that the land will become more productive by reason of the irrigation work to be executed by the landholder. It is argued for the appellant that an increased payment in return for an additional advantage cannot be aptly termed an enhancement. This contention would make Section 30(2) unmeaning, or, in the words of the learned District Judge, that provision would be simply otiose." Appama V/s. Raja Yerlagodda A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 563, relied on for the plaintiff, does not apply. In that case, there was no increase in the amount to be paid by the defendant; he was called on to pay to the zamindar the water rate of Rs. 5, which till then he had paid to the Government; the amount remained the same bub the right to collect it was transferred from the Government to the zamindar. But there is this observation: We do not think that an extra payment due for additional advantage is necessarily an enhancement. Whereas now circumstances have come into existence which require new adjustments, there is no question of enhancement.

(3.) These observations are obiter and cannot outweigh the plain and unequivocal terms of the statute. Venkataoha lam Chetty V/s. Ayyamperumal Tevan A.I.R. 1919 Mad. 36, refers to a charge for water taken and is clearly distinguishable.