SRIMANTHU RAJAH YARLAGADDA, SIVARAMA PRASAD BAHADUR ZAMINDAR GARU, ZAMINDAR OF DEVAKOTA Vs. JYOTI VENKADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of suits filed by the appellant, the Zamindar of Devakota who is a landholder under the Estates Land Act, for recovery of rent against several tenants in his estates in the village of Endakuduru. The lands comprised in the holdings of the defendants were dry, mamool wet, and bapat wet. The landholder claimed assessment at the rate of Rs. 1-7-0 for dry lands, Rs. 5-13-0 for mamool wet and Rs. 2-12-0 for bapat wet lands. The Deputy Collector decreed the suits as prayed by the plaintiff. But on appeal the learned District Judge has modified the rate as regards bapat wet lands for which he has awarded at the rate of Rs. 1-7-0 per acre, i.e., the rate pertaining to dry lands.

(2.) From the evidence on record it appears that the lands now described as bapat wet lands were originally dry but were converted into wet lands when they could be irrigated with the aid of the water from the Krishna Anicut. It is not suggested by the landholder either in the plaint or in the evidence that anything was done by him either before or after the Estates Land Act to enable the lands being cultivated with wet crops. The irrigation system admittedly does not belong to the Zamindar and the Estate's Zamindar is not able to suggest any improvements made by the Zamindar in respect of the lands now in suit. However it appears that there was an attempt on the part of the proprietor to levy an enhanced rate of rent in respect of these lands which, though originally dry, could after the introduction of the anicut system and the excavation of the connecting irrigation channels, be cultivated as wet. We find in certain muchilikas filed on the side of the plaintiff a clause providing enhanced rate of Rs. 2-12-0 per acre if wet crops were raised on the dry lands and another clause which says that in respect of dry bapat lands and the dry crops for which water will be taken from the anicut the ryot shall himself pay to the Government the water theerva which the Government may fix for them. It is also alleged by the landholder that for a continuous period of over thirty years the ryots have been paying without demur the enhanced rate for these bapat wet lands. He has not filed either the receipt counterfoils or collection accounts to show that actually the tenants had been paying the enhanced rate. Instead of following this obvious course he is rest content with an alleged admission in the written statement and in the evidence of the witnesses for the defendants that this enhanced rate was being paid.

(3.) The learned District Judge held that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff did not warrant him to imply a contract to pay the enhanced rent entered into before the passing of the Estates Land Act. It is quite true that if it is established that there was a valid enforceable contract between the landholder and the ryot in respect of the rate of rent of a particular holding which was in existence before the passing of the Estates Land Act such a contract would be enforceable notwithstanding the passing of the Estates Land Act and notwithstanding that, its provisions are inconsistent with some of the provisions of the said Act. But the most important condition which the landholder will have to fulfil is to establish not merely an agreement which may be inferred from a long continued course of payment at a particular rate but an agreement supported by lawful consideration.