YARLAGADDA RANGANAYAKULU NAIDU BAHADUR Vs. MYNENI LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a batch of 36 appeals which arise out of suits brought by the appellant, the zamindar of Katur estate, against his tenants in occupation of the lands in the village of Kummannur in his zamindari for recovery of arrears of rent for faslis 1338 to 1340 under Section 77, Estates Land Act. The lands comprise 311 acres 96 cents in extent. The tenants do not dispute the liability to pay rent but only to the rate claimed. The lands were admittedly dry in or about 1860 but most of them have since been converted into wet. The point in controversy is whether the defendants are liable to pay wet rates in respect of those lands or dry rates. The reason why the tenants refused to pay weft rates is that the zamindar has failed to fulfil his obligation of effecting repairs to the main channels which supply water to the lands. One of the questions that fell to be decided therefore was whether there was such an obligation. The lands being originally dry, the tenants were only bound to pay dry rates. The claim to the wet rates would therefore be for an enhancement of rent. The question is whether the zamindar could legally enforce it and whether any consideration moved from him.

(2.) It is a well-known fact that between 1865 and 1872 the anicut system for supplying water for the irrigation of lands from the Krishna river was introduced. In many of the villages comprised in the Nuzvid zamindari of which Katur also originally formed part it became a realized possibility, that dry lands could be converted into wet by the supply of Krishna water. Both zamindars and tenants took the advantage of the facilities thus afforded and irrigation channels were dug in most of the estates sometimes at the expense of the zamindar and sometimes at the joint expense of the zamindar and the tenant and rents payable by the tenants to the zamindar were adjusted in each estate having regard to the changed conditions. In most of the estates in the Nuzwid zamindari the system which originally prevailed was the asara system or the sharing system which later gave place in many parts to what is known as the visabadi system or the payment of fixed money rent. In the suit zamindari also irrigation channels were dug and particularly in respect of the suit village it appears that between 1879 and 1889 irrigation channels were dug. It is also in evidence that by the time the channels were dug the visabadi system had come into existence in respect of the suit lands. The digging of the channels and the facility of the Krishna water supply rendered possible the conversion of dry lands into wet. Rents were increased.

(3.) The question therefore is what were the terms arranged between the zamindar and the tenants? It is established in evidence that the main irrigation channels were dug by the zamindar and both the Courts have concurrently found that the zamindar was also maintaining the channels by repairing them at his own expense and for a period of over half a century wet rates were being levied and collected in respect of these lands. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the arrangement between the zamindar and the tenants was that the channels should be dug by the zamindar, that the repairs to them should be effected by him and the right to recover wet rates of rent was dependent upon the zamindar fulfilling his obligation to keep the channels in good repair. The Deputy Collector of the Nuzwid Division found that the zamindar failed to fulfil his obligation to keep the main channels in repair in the suit faslies and therefore he could not levy the usual wet rates, but at the same time he observed that the tenants could not insist on having dry rates because the zamindar having dug the channels, it cannot be said that there was no consideration for the enhancement of rent. The Deputy Collector therefore took the view that it was competent to him to fix a fair rate of rent. The zamindari changed hands and the present zamindar came into possession of the zamindari in or about 1922 and after he came into possession, there was a dispute as regards the obligation to effect repairs and that question seems to have been settled by a mutual conference of the zamindar and the tenants on or about 7 December 1923 at which it was agreed that the zamindar should pay Rs. 160 towards repairs of the channels and another sum of Rs. 40 towards the expenses of a festival connected with the temple of Sri Seetharamaswami every year. Both the lower Courts found that this arrangement was not temporary but permanent. In fixing a fair rate of rent the Deputy Collector found that the enhanced wet rate fetched about Rs. 500 a year. He therefore held that as under the agreement the zamindar was bound to pay Rs. 200 a year and the rate enhanced was Re. 1 per acre, the defendants ought to get a reduction of 200-500 of the extra rupee per acre or annas six on each acre of wet land. He gave a decree accordingly. The learned District Judge confirmed this decree. He observed that the existence of irrigation channels in a state of good repair is essential for carrying on wet cultivation and the payment of higher wet rates and hence the inference is irresistible, that the execution of repairs or payment for the same is intimately connected with it and is in discharge of a liability to do so as a condition precedent to the recovery of the higher rate of wet rent.