T P KANTHIMATHINATHA PILLAI Vs. PUGAL SUBRAMANIA NADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant in all these second appeals that the lower Courts were wrong in holding on issue No. 2 that the tendered pattas were improper as regards (a) the charge of rent on uncultivated dry lands, (b) the charge of "sarasari" for dry cultivation on wet lands.

(2.) As regards the first point, the appellant, the landlord, relies on the wording of Section 4 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which runs thus: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, a landholder is entitled to collect rent in respect of all ryoti land in the occupation of a ryot. "

(3.) It has been suggested with some plausibility that it is by no means clear that this section was intended to be anything more than introductory to the succeeding section of the Act, and that the emphasis laid by the appellant on the word all" is misplaced. But, however this may be, it has been held in recent cases by this Court that the sections should be read subject to the provisions of the Section 27 and that a custom of paying rent only on the area actually cultivated,if proved, may be set up against Section 4; vide Arunachellam Chettiar v. Muthayanai Thevan 25 Ind. Cas. 675 ; 26 M.L.J. 575. and Udayal v. Arunachala Chettiar 27 Ind. Cas. 872; 1915 M.W.N. 190; 2 L.W. 145 Such a custom has been pleaded by the respondents in these suits and if properly established, must be allowed to prevail.