SUBBARAYA GOUNDAN Vs. SRANGANATHA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal is whether a Zamindar or Mittadar who under his sannad has a right to collect the jodi payable by an Inamdar, has a charge for arrears of such jodi on the interest of the Inamdar. Before considering this question it may be well to refer to the right of Government to a charge for arrears of revenue, and to the rights of the Inamdar for arrears against the ryots themselves.

(2.) It was held by Innes, J. in Subbaraya v. The Sub-Collector of Chingleput (1883) I.L.R. 6 M. 303 at p. 310 that "the right of the Government is only a right to a charge on the land, and a right to forfeit by due course of law, the title of the person holding the land who does not pay the charge;" and this was cited with approval by Shephard, J. in Secretary of Stale v. Ashtamurthi (1889) I.L.R. 13 M. 89 at 123. In the present case the Government assigned its right to revenue to the Inamdar subject to the payment of a jodi, and it is well-settled that by virtue of such assignment the Inamdar did not acquire a charge upon the land, but was left to recover rent -from the occupiers under the provisions of the Madras Rent Recovery Act of 1865; and it was not until the passing of the Act of 1908 that landholders, including certain Inamdars acquired a statutory charge for rent. As regards the jodi payable by the Inamdar to Government it is, where it has not been assigned, recoverable by Government, like Zamindar s peishcush by sale of the Inamdar s interest under the law in force for the time being, now the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. Under Section 2 of that Act the land, the buildings upon it, and its products are to be regarded as the security for the public revenue; but provided they have paid the rent to the landholder the ryots are not affected by the landholder s default, to pay the revenue, due by him (Section 33) and all that Government can do is to sell the interest of the defaulter free of all incumbrances. The right to sell free of incumbrances in such a case is conferred by Section 42 of the Act.

(3.) Coming now to cases where the right to collect the jodi has been transferred to the Zamindar or Mittadar under his sannad, there is a long series of decisions in this Court that, when Government transfers the right to collect the jodi to a Zamindar or Mittadar in consideration of his undertaking to pay a fixed peishcush, the Zamindar or Mittadar has no charge upon them and that a suit by him to recover jodi is a, suit for rent and nothing more and so cognizable in this Presidency by the Court of Small Causes.