P M A VELLAYAPPA CHETTI Vs. SUBRAMANIAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of second appeals the appellants are the ryots. The landholder brought suits under Section 77 of Act I of 1908, the Madras Estates Land Act, for arrears of rent for certain faslis. The appellants contended that the rent claimed in respect of cocoanut plantations was more than the rent they were bound to pay and that they were liable to pay only at the punja rate. Both the Lower Courts found against the contentions of the appellants. Two points are raised in these appeals. The first is, that the cocoanut plantation in respect of which the alleged higher rent is claimed is an improvement within the meaning of Section 3(4) of the Act and the second is that the cocoanut plantations come within Clause (f) of the same sub- section. Both the Courts have found that the wells were dug at the cost of a few annas, and the digging of such wells was not an improvement within the meaning of Section 11(4). The evidence is that two coolies working till noon could dig a well. The soil is sandy and the water is almost within a foot or two from the surface. When cocoanut seedlings are planted, small pits are dug which are euphemistically known as wells and water is baled out from these wells. The cocoanut seedlings require water for about 5 or 6 years after plantation. The appellants contention is that the sinking of these wells is an improvement within Section 3, Clause 4 of the Act. Clause 4 is in these terms: Improvement means with reference to the ryot's holding any work which materially adds to the value of the holding, etc.

(2.) The question is whether these wells have materially added to the value of the holding. The water of each pit is said to be sufficient to water 60 or 70 plants and twigs of tamarind trees and cotton stocks are placed round the wells so as to prevent the earth or the sand from falling in. The real test of the improvement is the rise in value of the holding by reason of the improvement. Could it be said that by having a few pits here and there in a field, the cost of digging which is not more than eight annas, the value of the holding would be en-hanced? It is impossible to hold that these pits would in any way enhance the value of the holding. The soil itself being sandy it is fit for cocoanut plantation. It is not by digging wells alone that the appellants have been able to grow cocoanut plantations. The case would be different if the wells are dug and crops which would not thrive but for the water of the well have been raised. Wells are something more than mere pits which could be dug by a cooly within one hour or two hours or as it is done in some places by removing the sand with the feet. It cannot be said that small pits one or two feet deep for the purpose of baling water would enhance the value of the holding. Reliance is placed by Mr. Patanjali Sastri on the observation of a Bench of this Court in S.A. No. 571 of 1916. The learned Judges observe: We can see no reason to restrict the meaning of improvement to a permanent improvement, for temporary improvements can materially enhance the value of the holding for the period during which they are in existence.

(3.) On looking into the papers in that case it appears that the District Judge found that there was no improvement as the wells were sunk at a trifling cost. In paragraph 3 he says: His claim has been rightly disallowed even though it may be that the wells in question being temporary pits sunk at a trifling cost are not improvc- ments within the meaning of the term as defined in the Act, Section 3(4) since they do not materially add to the value of the holding.