MUTHIAH CHETTIAR Vs. PERIYAN KONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These suits were brought by a landholder to enforce accepatance of Puttahs under Section 56 of the Madras Estates Land Act.

(2.) The Deputy Collector, who tried the suits, found that the tenure in the village, Chennianviduthi, was Amani tenure and that in spite of temporary lapses when cash rents were paid, the landholder was entitled to revert to the Varam system. The District Judge, on appeal, found that there was an implied contract between the parties that the rents should be paid in cash and, therefore, that the plaintiff had no subsisting right to revert to Amani rates.

(3.) He quotes in his judgment a passage from the Full Bench case of Venkatagopal v. Rangappa 7 M. 365 (F.B.) to the effect that payment of rent in a particular form at a certain rate for a number of years is presumptive evidence of the existence of a contract to pay rent in that form or at that rate for those years. In doing so he has omitted the words at a certain rate . In Kavipurapu Rama Rao v. Diritavalli Narasayya 27 M. 417 it was pointed out that for drawing an inference of this nature from past payments the circumstances must be such as to suggest an agreement to pay at some definite rate. In a case where there was some evidence of money rents having been paid but the rates were fluctuating and not uniform, both the High Court and the Judicial Committee in Parthasarqthi Appa Row v. Chevandro Venkata Narasayya 6 Ind. Cas. 988 : 33 M. 177 (P.C.) : 14 C.W.N. 938 : 20 M.L.J. 696 : 8 M.L.T. 141 : 12 Bom. L.R. 648 : 12 C.L.J. 288 : (1910) M.W.N. 466 : 87 I.A. 110 Considered that it was not open to the Courts to infer an agreement to pay money rents, though the latter tribunal,observed that the prevalence of money rents in a particular locality for a number of years might form an element in the consideration of the question of usage. I am clearly of opinion that an agreement to pay rent in cash without the rate being definitely fixed would be void for uncertainty. 3. The Deputy Collector in this case found that the defendants exhibits did not establish the fact that uniform amounts were paid by particular ryots for several consecutive years. He observed that Exhibit VI was not a Muchilika but a list of lands in the, holding of each ryot with details of the rate, of rent due for each land, but the rates were not uniform. The learned District Judge adopted the rates given in Exhibit VI as proper rates, while recognising that they varied. He did not find that a contract, express or implied, existed to pay rent at any particular rate, but he adopted the rates given in Exhibit VI, apparently because he considered that the plaintiff bad failed to prove his case.