VAJAPEYAJULA VENKATESWARLU Vs. RAGADAMILLI VIRASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are complicated, but they are not in dispute. The contest is with regard to their effect in law.

(2.) At all times material to the suit out of which the appeal arises the second defendant and defendants 3 to 8 jointly held as landholders within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act certain lanka lands measuring 217.32 acres. It was agreed between these defendants that the second defendant should have the right of managing the lands in faslis ending with an even number and that defendants 3; to 8 should have the same right in faslis ending in an odd number. In fasli 1344 (1 July, 1934 to 30 June, 1935) the first plaintiff was the tenant of the lands and it being an even fasli the second defendant was lawfully in charge of them. The first plaintiff failed to pay the rent due for that year and on the 2nd June, 1936, the second defendant started proceedings under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which he had then the right to do. The amount due by the first plaintiff in respect of rent was Rs. 993- 12-0. On the 30 June, 1937, that is the last day of fasli 1346 the first plaintiff gave notice under Section 149 to all the colandholders of his resolve to relinquish his tenancy. The notice served upon the second defendant was admittedly received by him on the 2nd July, 1937. Within thirty days of the receipt of the notice served upon him under Section 112, the first plaintiff instituted a suit under Sub-section (2) contesting the right of the second defendant to proceed with the sale. This suit was dismissed on the 19 April, 1937.

(3.) The third and fourth defendants had received notice under Section 112 of the second defendant's intention to sell and they also filed a suit under Sub-section (2). They maintained that they had been unjustly included in the notice and that the rent due to the second defendant could be recovered by proceeding against the holding and the defaulting ryot. As the result of their protest they were exonerated from the proceedings which were continued merely against the first plaintiff as the ryot concerned. On the. 3 June, 1937, the Deputy Collector passed an order for sale under Section 116. On the 10 August, 1937, the first plaintiff filed a memorandum saying that he had relinquished bis interest in the holding under Section 149-and therefore he was no longer interested in the proceedings. On the 18th August, August 1937, the Deputy Collector passed this order: The petition for relinquishment is time-barred under Section 149, of the Estates Land Act. File with S.A. No. 2 of 1346. S.A. No. 2 of 1346 was the application filed by the second defendant under Section 114 after the first plaintiff's suit under Section 112(2) had been dismissed. The order is difficult to understand as there was no question of limitation. Learned Counsel have not been able to throw any light upon the matter.