SRI SRI SRI RAMACHENDRA MARDA RAJA DEO GARU MINOR BY HIS AGENT AND NEXT FRIEND THE MANAGER OF KALLIKOTA AND ATTAGADA ESTATES Vs. MULI PODHANO,; GOVINDA PODHANO,; KALU PODHANO AND HARI SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These suits were brought by the Zemindar of Kallikota and Attagada against certain ryots of his estate for the recovery of arrears of rent under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act. From the printed papars, the admissibility of which is- not disputed, it appears that what happened was this.

(2.) On the 22nd January 19i2, certain ryots applied under Section 74 of the Act to the Deputy Collector to depute a Government Officer to make a division of the crops on their holdings, alleging that the estate officials had over-estimated the crop for the current fasli, that the ryots not agreeing to the estate s estimate sent a notice to the taluk officer to have the crop estimated by mediators within two days of the receipt of their letter, stating that, if he would not do so, the crop would be cut and heaped in the threshing-floor, and that, as no one had come within six days, they had got the crop estimated by respectable persons and had cut and heaped it on the threshing-floor. Thereupon, the Deputy Collector sent a notice to the Manager of the estate to attend on a date fixed before the Deputy Tahsildar, informing him that the Deputy Tahsildar had been deputed for the purpose of division of produce under the Act. In his proceedings, dated 31st^ January 1912, the Deputy Collector directed the Deputy Tahsildar to make a division of the produce according to Section 75 of the Act. He ordered him further to take up the work as soon as possible, pronounce his award and submit the records to the Deputy Collector s Office with a report; adding that if the parties agreed to his award the division of the produce might be made accordingly. Seventeen days after this, the Manager of the estate filed an objection petition in the Court of the Deputy Collector in which he stated that the Estate Revenue Inspector had got the crops estimated in December by the Village Officers and that the ryots did not object to this estimate, but that they had reaped a portion of the crop before and after the estimate was made and had carried away nearly half of it; and he, therefore, asked the Court to order payment at the rate of 11 nouties per bharanam on the total produce of paddy and 12 nouties on the extent grown with sugarcane, or to order payment at the rate paid by other ryots holding similar lands in the neighbourhood or, in the alternative,-to have the crop appraised by a Government Officer under Section 75 of the Act. A notice was sent in April to the Manager requiring him to show cause why his application for appraisement of crops should not be rejected for want of standing crops on the lands for appraisement. But it does not appear whether he did show cause against this order and whether any final orders were passed on the subject. The Deputy Tahsildar, in his award dated the 28th May 1912, states that he confined himself to the division of the produce stored in the threshing-floor, noting simply the objection of the estate manager about the removal of a portion of the produce. An assessor was appointed by the ryots and the Deputy Tahsildar appointed another assessor for the estate, as the estate officials refused to nominate one. The Deputy Tahsildar then divided the paddy between the petitioners and the estate according to the usual waram rate, and appended to his award a statement showing the total produce of the holdings of each petitioner the melvaram paid to the estate and the kudivaram paid to the ryot. The estate Revenue Inspector gave a receipt for the portion that fell to the estate s share acknowledging it as part- payment of what was due from the ryots. The Deputy Collector, on receiving the Deputy Tahsildar s award, waited for more than a month to see if any objections were filed and as none were received, he confirmed the award.

(3.) Section 73 of the Act declares that the ryot is entitled to exclusive possession of the whole produce until it is divided, but may hot remove any portion of the produce from the threshing-floor at such a time or in such a manner as to prevent the due division thereof at the proper time, and Clause (4) declares that, if he does so, the produce may be deemed to have been as full as the fullest crop of the same description in the neighbourhood on similar land for that harvest. Section 74 provides for applications being presented either by the landholdei or by the ryot to the Collector for deputing an officer to make the division or appraisement or determination of the crop. The next section declares what the duties of the officer, who is so deputed, are. If an objection is made that the rent is not taken by division, or appraisement, or that no rent is payable, Section 75(2) requires the officer deputed merely to record the objection, and after appointing assessors and recording their opinions the officer is to make an award. If the parties agree to the award and if the case is one of division of produce, the division is to be made accordingly. If they do not agree to the division, and in all cases where the rent is payable by appraisement of the standing crop or where the value of a full crop has to be determined, the officer deputed is to make an estimate of the produce and determine the rent payable. He then delivers his award and submits a report to the Collector. A week s time is given for parties to file objections. If an objection is filed that the rent is not payable by division or appraisement or that no rent is payable, (which reading Section 74 together with Clauses (2) and (7) of Section 75, I take to be equivalent to a preliminary objection against the application of this summary procedure for ascertaining the rent) and if the Collector upholds the objection, he must set aside the award. If any other objection is filed, or if no objection is filed, the Collector may confirm the award or may, after hearing the parties, modify it and he must then pass an order for the payment of the rent. Such an order is declared to be final and to have the effect of a decree for arrears of rent.