YELAMARTY RAMANNA Vs. SOBHANADRI APPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of suits filed by the plaintiff zamindar against the defendants tenants under the Estates Land Act for a decree directing the defendants to accept the patta tendered by him and to execute a corresponding muchilika containing the stipulations mentioned in the patta. Suits were also filed to recover rent. The case for the plaintiff is that a proper patta was prepared in respect of the land specified in the plaint according to the practice obtaining in the estate and that the defendants declined to accept it and to execute a corresponding muchilika.

(2.) The defendants filed a written statement stating that the patta was not prepared according to the practice obtaining in the estate or in the village, that the patta was not tendered to them, that neither the stipulations contained in the plaint patta, nor the cist amounts, nor the extents of the lands are correct, that the cist payable to the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands was correctly stated in the muchilikas previously executed and given by the defendants and their ancestors and that the stipulation for higher rent is not valid. They also ?raise other minor defences which it is not necessary to consider here as the only point argued by the appellant before us is the right of the landlord to claim a higher rent. The contention of the plaintiff before the Revenue Divisional Officer who tried the suits was that the rates already fixed on the suit lands were far too low when compared with the rates now existing on lands of similar nature and quality in the neighbourhood and that he was entitled to claim a higher rent under Section 26 (3), Estates Land Act. The defendants case was that what the plaintiff really wanted was an enhancement of the rent, that Section 26 (3) did not apply and that the proper remedy was to apply to the Collector under Section 30 for enhancement.

(3.) The Revenue Divisional Officer held from a perusal of the Adangal, and amarakam accounts (Exs. G and C series) that the rates of rent prevailing on the surrounding dry lands were Rs. 0-13-0; Rs. 1-3-0; Rs. 1-4-0 and Rs. 1-10-0, whereas the rates of rent hitherto borne by the suit lands ranged from Rs 0-5-0 to Rs. 0-10-0, that no special inferiority in the soil of the suit lands had been made out by the defendants while the evidence on the plaintiff's side showed that they were of the same nature and quality as the lands in the neighbourhood, that the contention of the defendants that the rates already borne by the suit lands were normal and reasonable rates were not made out and that the case fell under Section 26 (3) and not under Section 30. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover enhanced rent for faslis subsequent to fasli 1329. He also held that the terms in the pattas tendered were such as were usually entered and that they were not open to any objection. On appeal the District Judge was of opinion that in this estate specially low rates of rent Were charged when lands were let for grazing purposes, that the amarakam and adangal accounts for the years 1886 to 1888 showed that the village holdings were classified as maraka-sagu (dry cultivation) and banjar lands and that the lands in suit were included in banjar class. The learned Judge observes: In view of the designation of these lands and of the specially low rates appertaining to them, there seems no doubt that they were appropriated to a peculiar purpose, and that the plaintiff's contention is true that they were reserved as grazing lands at a time when the pressure on the land for cultivation was not so great as it is now.