B RAJARAJESWARA SETHUPATHI ALIAS MUTHURAMALINGA SETHUPATHI AVERGAL, RAJAH OF RAMNAD Vs. MEERASA MARAKKAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The series of decisions in the District Court and High Court relied on by the District Judge do not altogether establish a custom that waste is not chargeable even if it be due to the ryots wilful neglect vide Arunachallam Chettiar v. Mangalam 35 Ind. Cas. 329 : 40 M. 640 : 20 M.L.T. 70 : 4 L.W. 37 : 37 : 31 M.L.J. 168 and Udayal v. Arunachala Chettiar 27 Ind. Cas. 872 : (1915) M.W.N. 190 : 2 L.W. 145 and Ramasami Servaigaran v. Athivaraha Chariar 44 Ind. Cas. 663 : 23 M.L.T. 183 : 7 L.W. 471 : (1918) M.W.N. 340 recently decided. The custom upheld in those cases was that waste dry lands were not chargeable unless left waste by wilful neglect. The District Judge is, therefore, directed to reconsider his finding and decide whether the custom found by him is supported by the evidence or whether the custom is as found in the cases referred to above. In the latter case, he must further decide whether plaintiff has proved that any of the waste in these suits was due to defendants wilful neglect.

(2.) The finding should be submitted within six weeks from this date and ten days will be allowed for filing objections.

(3.) In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Judge of Hamnad at Madura submitted the following. FINDING.