ARUMUGAM CHETTI Vs. VENKATESWARA ETTAPPA MAHARAJAH AYYAN AVERGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these 27 Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are ryots holding lands in certain villages in the Zemindari of Grantamanaikanur. They brought these suits before the Sub- Collector under Section 8 of the Rent Recovery Act to compel the respondent who is the Zemindar to grant them proper pattas for Fasli 1312. In the plaints they stated that though they themselves had sunk wells at their own cost in certain dry lands, forming part of the holdings and with the aid thereof they had been raising garden crops, the respondent insisted upon charging the garden rate of 8 fanams per guli instead of the dry rate of 4 fanams per guli, which alone he was entitled to charge in respect of such cultivation. They therefore prayed for a decree that pattas may be granted to them in which the said dry rate alone is charged.

(2.) The respondent in his written statement did not allege that the wells were sunk by himself or his predecessors in title, but in effect asserted that, even assuming that the wells were sunk by the ryots themselves, he had a right to charge the higher rate of 8 fanams on the ground first, of a local custom and secondly, of a contract to pay at that rate to be implied from the fact of its payment by the ryots for a number of years. He did not, however, either then or subsequently, aver or suggest that any consideration passed from him or his predecessors in title which would support the alleged promise on the part of the ryots to pay at the higher rate. In a tabular statement filed by him under the orders of the Sub-Collector he simply set forth in respect of the land in each case in regard to which the question was raised the period during which payment at the higher rate had been made. The Sub-Collector proceeded to deal with the cases on the footing that the facts were (1) the lands to which the dispute relates were dry lands chargeable with 4 fanams per guli, (2) that the wells were sunk at the cost, not of the respondent or his predecessors in title but of the ryots themselves, and (3) that the payments at the higher rate had been made by the ryots for the respective periods specified in the statement referred to above. Accordingly he raised the following issues: (1). Is there a general custom to charge enhanced rates for garden crops when raised by plaintiff irrespective of any improvement or alteration in the land made at plaintiff's expense; and is such custom, if proved, valid in law ? (2). If plaintiff has paid at such enhanced rates for previous several years, is he estopped from objecting now to the enhanced rates and is there an implied contract binding him to continue to pay such rates" ?

(3.) As to the existence of the custom, the Sub-Collector recorded no evidence for he held that the provisions of the Rent Recovery Act secured to the appellants the benefit of the improvement effected by them free from any liability to enhanced rent and consequently that the custom, even if it exists, could not in point of law disentitle the appellants to claim such benefit. As regards the question of implied contract he was of opinion that the alleged contract was illegal as opposed to the said provisions of the statute. In the result he directed that the respondent do tender pattas charging 4 fanams per guli with reference to the lands to the garden cultivation whereon the dispute related. On appeal the District Judge reversed the decrees and remanded the cases for disposal on the merits though he does not say what the merits contemplated were.