METUKUR SUBBA REDDY Vs. DAMAVARAPU VENKATASUBBA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is suing the two defendants under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act for rent. He claims rent at an enhanced rate following on an order under Section 42. All the proceedings under Section 42 were against the registered pattadar, the 1 defendant, and he remained ex parts. The 2nd defendant was as a matter of fact at that time in possession of the lands by a deed of transfer from the 1 defendant, but he was no party to the proceedings under Section 42. It is admitted, however, that neither he nor the 1 defendant had given notice of the transfer to the plaintiff as required by Section 146 of the Act. The 2nd defendant contested the suit for rent and claimed that as he was no party to the proceedings for enhancement he is not bound by these, and is entitled now to re-open the question of the propriety of the enhancement. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that by force of Section 147 the 2nd defendant is bound by the proceedings which bind his transferor. 2nd defendant rejoins that Section 147 has no application to proceedings under Section 42,fand that is the sole question for consideration here.

(2.) 2nd defendant's contention is that the wording of the conclusion of Section 147 "as if...he had been the defaulter" implies that the section is intended 1 to apply only to cases of transfers in which there are "defaulters" in the sense of persons who have not paid their due rent and that therefore "proceedings" in the section is confined to proceedings for actual recovery of rent and will not therefore apply to proceedings under Section 42. I agree with the lower appellate court that the scheme of the Act renders this restricted interpretation untenable. The scope of Section 146 obviously is that one who is a ryot of a landholder shall when he has transferred his holding remain subject to the obligations of the ryot vis a vis his landlord, unless both he and the transferee have notified the landlord of the transfer; that is, until the transfer is notified the original owner continues to bear the obligations on the holding. The reason is obvious, viz., to save the landlord from being harassed and bound by all kinds of transfers of which he has not been apprised and to prevent the ryot from evading his obligations by a plea of a transfer to another of which the landlord knows nothing at all. This being the scheme it would be surprising if Section 147 restricted the estoppel against the transferee merely to actual suits for rent and not to collateral proceedings also, such as proceedings for determination of the rent. To accede to the 2nd defendant's contention would produce this result that proceedings under Section 42 would be open to challenge ad infiwitum by every one of a succession of transferees, and that one could never say of any proceedings except actual suits for rent that anything had been finally determined by them. To such a result I should not feel myself constrained to come unless the language of the section gives no other alternative. Now where an order has been passed under Section 42 against a registered holder enhancing his rent, I do not think it is a straining of language to say that the word defaulter will describe him aptly. He has defaulted in his obligation to his landlord and has come short in his legal duties to him. I would, therefore, hold that Section 147 in terms applies.

(3.) In. any case it seems to me that the proceedings under Section 42 to which the registered holder was a party fixed the proper rent at the enhanced rate and, since for any default in paying that rent the land may be sold, it is difficult to see what advantage the appellant will gain by his present contentions. I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs. Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.