SUNDARAM AYER Vs. KULATHU IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant in these second appeals. Summary Suits Nos. 44 etc. of 1916 and Nos. 36 etc. of 1917 were instituted by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of the Honorary Deputy Collector of Tinnevelly Division to recover rent due in respect of properties in the possession of the ryots defendant in the inam village of Vagaikulam. The inam village belongs to Sri Vyasaraya Swamigal Mutt at Sosalai in the Mysore State. The practice of the Mathadhipati had been, as is disclosed by the evidence in these cases, to grant leases to persons for different terms authorising them to recover the rent from the ryots in possession of the lands. It is in evidence that leases for particular terms were granted, among others, to the father of the plaintiff. The last of the said leases came to an end with fasli 1321; and the plaintiff obtained a lease for faslis 1322 to 1331 from the Mathadhipati, and on the basis of the said lease he instituted the various suits mentioned by me to recover arrears of rent due for faslis 1322, 1323 and 1324.

(2.) In the plaints, the plaintiff claimed rent on the basis of "waram." The defendants pleaded that it was the "sharing system" that was in vogue in the village, but that the rates claimed by the plaintiff were not the correct rates and that the correct rates of rent were those paid by them to the plaintiff's father, the previous lessee. As I said, though both claims involved division of the produce, yet, there was difference as regards the proportion in which the produce was to be divided according to the contention of the plaintiff and the defendants, the plaintiff claiming more, while the defendants contended that the plaintiff was entitled only to a less proportion of the produce.

(3.) When the present suits were filed, there was pending in the High Court a batch of second appeals preferred by the plaintiff's father as lessee against other ryots of the village to recover rent due for certain faslis. A similar contention was raised in those suits also, and though the Deputy Collector had accepted the contention of the plaintiff, the landlord in those suits, the District Court had modified the decree passed by the Deputy Collector and consequently, second appeals were preferred to the High Court in which similar questions were raised. The parties agreed to have the hearing of the present suits adjourned from time to time so that they may have the benefit of the High Court's decision in the second appeals mentioned by me. The final decision of the High Court was pronounced, after findings had been called for by the High Court, and submitted by the then District Judge, only on 23 December 1916: vide Ex. H (6) in the case. The real trial of the present suits, therefore, began only after the said judgment of the High Court was passed. Though the present defendants were not parties to the litigation that was pending in the High Court, yet having regard to the fact that similar questions had to be decided in the present suits, the judgment of the High Court was treated as evidence on the points on which the parties were at issue in the present suits. The Deputy Collector considered the judgment of the High Court and the other evidence adduced by the parties to the present litigation and came to the conclusion that the contention of the plaintiff as regards the proportion in which the produce was to be divided was the correct one according to the evidence adduced in the case. There were, however, other disputes raised before him about the plaintiff's right to recover certain cesses. I may mention that as many as nine cases were the subject of dispute between the parties. The Deputy Collector upheld the contention of the plaintiff in respect of seven out of the nine cases; and in respect of two, namely Kalvainazar and Yavanai, he held that, though the High Court had in the previous litigation upheld the validity of the same, yet, having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties in these present suits the plaintiff was not entitled to recover these two cesses. There was another important question raised before the Deputy Collector with reference to the amount of rent due to the plaintiff for fasli 1322. To properly appreciate the exact contention between the parties relating to the dispute regarding the rent due for fasli 1322 I must mention that, during the existence of the lease in favour of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff's father had admittedly exchanged pattas and muchilikas for faslis 1315 and 1316. It was a point for decision whether there were subsequent pattas tendered by him for subsequent faslis.