R BHUNJANGA RAO Vs. PERIYATHAMBI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first point argued by the learned Advocate-General before me in this batch of second appeals is that the Estates Land Act does not apply to the case. To understand this point it is necessary to set forth the history of the suit village. Exhibit D is a statement dated the 15 January 1873 initialled by Mr. Whiteside, the then Collector of North Arcot. It is hended: Statement showing the particulars of shortrien mokasa sarvamaniam villagers in the minor estate of Arni Jaghir, Noth Aroct District.

(2.) It shows that the suit village of Rajammarpuram was granted by the then jaghirdar Thirumala Rao Saheb in Fasli 1211 to the ancestor of the defendant's vendor K. Krishna Rao. The grantee seams to have applied that certain lands may be given to him on cowle tenure for constructing a tank and building a village. The suit village was granted to him and for the first two years after the grant, no assessment was fixed. It was said that the assessment will be fixed after two years. In Fasli 1215 he submitted accounts and requested that 50 pagodas may be fixed on it as mutka (rent) and it was accordingly fixed. Afterwards a document was issued to his son Madhava Rao in Fasli 1233 which states that the beriz was reduced to 10 pagodas. So far the statements in Clause19 of Ex. D suggest that the village-was granted to a ryot for rent. The-document then proceeds to say: The inam appears to have been granted subsequent to paimash. In 1223 the grantee represented that the ryots were very poor and the rent should be reduced. Accordingly 40 pagodas were permanently remitted. It will be safe to continue the grant which evidently falls within the scope of Section 15 of Regulation 30 of 1802.

(3.) From the reference to Section 15 of Regulation 30 of 1802, the Advocate- General argues that the whole transaction was one of leasing to a ryot, that the so called grantee, Krishna Rao, and his son Madhava Rao were merely ryots under the Arni Jaghirdar and the defendant, who is the descendant of the original, grantee, is a ryot under the Arni Jaghirdar and the plaintiffs are undertenants to whom the Estates Land Act does not apply. If the defendant is not a ryot under the jaghirdar of Arni, but is himself regarded as a land-holder, his position would then be that of one who is generally and loosely described as a subsequent inamdar. If he is a subsequent inamiar, the matter is not open to me for discussion though I confess I am inclined to agree with the view of Wallis, C.J. in Gadadhara Das V/s. Suryanarayan Patnaik [1921] 44 Mad. 677 and of Schwabe, C.J., and Devadoss, J., in Brahmayya V/s. Achiraju A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 373 (F.B.). So far as this High Court is concerned, the matter is now settled by the majority of the Full Banch against an inamdar and I am bound by it. Where a grantee pays some kind of rent to the zamindar whether he should be regarded as a subsequent inamdar and, therefore, a land-holder to whom the Estates Land Act should apply as between him and his tenant or whether he should be regarded as a ryot under the zemindar paying rent to him, the Estates Land Act applying to his relations with the Zamindar but not as between him and his under-tenats ( Section 19 of the Act) must always be a difficult question to decide in the application of the Full Bench decision.