RAJA OF RAMNAD Vs. KAMID ROWTHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the present set of cases is the zamindar of Ramnad, an estate situated in the Presidency of Madras. The defendants are ryots who are tenants of the plaintiff in virtue of certain puttahs. The plaintiff complained that the defendants had cut down trees belonging to him. The trees were palmyra trees, which yield a juice which is tapped from the trees, and, as it makes an intoxicating liquor, has a commercial value. The plaintiff raised separate actions against each alleged wrongdoer in the Court of the District Munsif of Manamadura. 'The pleading in the case was in the highest degree unsatisfactory, and was, as will appear hereafter, the real cause of the unsatisfactory condition of the case on the appeal before this Board. It may be here parenthetically explained that the ordinary position of a ryot is that he is in possession of the land for agricultural uses, but that he is not entitled to cut down trees. But in Madras there is special legislation dealing with the subject- namely, the Madras Estates Land Act, being Madras Act I. of 1908. Section 12 of that Act is in the following terms: "Subject to any rights which by custom or by contract in writing executed by the ryot before the passing of this Act are reserved to the landholder, every occupancy ryot shall have the right to use, enjoy and cut down all trees now in his holding, and in the case of trees which after the passing of this Act may be planted by the ryot or which may naturally grow upon the holding he shall have the right to use, enjoy and cut them down, notwithstanding any contract or custom to the contrary."

(2.) IN the definition clause, Section 3, Sub-section 6, "occupancy ryot" is defined: "'Occupancy ryot' means a ryot having a permanent right of occupancy in his holding." Then Sub-section 15 defines "ryot": "'Ryot' means a person who holds for the purpose of agriculture ryoti land in an estate on condition of paying to the landholder the rent which is legally due upon it." Sub-section 3 defines "holding": "'Holding' means a parcel or parcels of land held under a single puttah or engagement in a single village."

(3.) TO this the defendant (again taking one case as a sample) replied first, by denying that the trees had been cut and, second, by denying the custom alleged. It is thus evident that, so far, the real question as to whether the Act of 1908 applied had not been properly raised. It is true that it had been alleged that the puttah was a tree puttah. But that allegation had not been pressed home by the appropriate plea, that the result was that the Act did not apply. On the contrary a custom of payment had been set up, which exactly fits the exception mentioned in the opening words of Section 12. The parties then went to trial in the Court of the District Munsif of Manamadura. He delivered a judgment. In this judgment he found as a fact that the trees had been cut. He then found in law that, as a tirva, or rent, was paid for the trees, the trees belonged to the zamindar, and that, therefore, at common law, apart from custom, if the tenants cut the trees they must pay damages. He then went on to deal with the averment of custom as if it had been an averment of custom, not as to right of payment, which it obviously was, but as to scale of payment, which it obviously was not. He then found that there was no universal custom proved as to scale, and thus it being left to himself to determine the figure of damages, he determined them as twenty-five years' purchase of the annual rent value of a tree. He did not in his judgment make any mention of the Act of 1908. He granted decrees in all cases for a sum representing the twenty-five years' purchase of the rental value of the trees cut.