RAJA SRIMANTHU MUTHU VIJIA RAGUNATHA DURAISINGAM ALIAS GOWRI VALLABHA THEVAR AVERGAL, ZAMINDAR OF SIVAGANGA, THROUGH THE ESTATE COLLECTOR Vs. PERIASAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals raise a number of questions of importance to landholders and ryots in the Madras Presidency. The appellant is the Zamindar of Sivaganga, which is one of the important Zamindaries of Southern India. Before 1922 it was the custom of the tenants to pay their rent in kind, but in that year the Court of Wards, which was then in charge of the estate, formulated a scheme for the permanent commutation of rent in kind to re at in money. The scheme provided for the tenants signifying their acceptance in writing of the proposal and for the ? exchange of pattas and muchilikas drawn up on the new basis. At the time the scheme was viewed with favour by the tenants. Practically all of them signed consent statements and many of them accepted pattas which stipulated for the payment of the rent in money, but owing to the large number of tenants it was not possible to complete the arrangement by the issue of pattas to all of them while grain prices remained stable, and some tenants refused to accept the pattas tendered when their turns came, because prices had fallen. In 1928 the appellant filed a number of suits for the recovery of money rents on the footing that there had been a valid commutation. Some of the suits were defended on the ground that the appellant was not entitled in law to payment of rent in money. In other cases the appellant had distrained and had taken proceedings for the sale of the holdings for the nonpayment of rent in money. The question of the legality of the demand for rent in money having been raised, sortie of the tenants filed suits contesting the right of the appellant to distrain or to sell. In September, 1930, there were pending in the Revenue Court 2310 suits in which the appellant or tenants were, the plaintiffs. These suits were tried by three Deputy Collectors, but for the purposes of this appeal it is only necessary to refer to the judgment of one of them, namely, that of Mr. Amiritaswami Pillai, which was delivered on the 15 September, 1930. In 94 cases appeals were filed in the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad, who dealt with them in one judgment. Second appeals were filed in 50 cases and 47 of these appeals are now before us. The learned Counsel engaged in the appeals have agreed that this Court can also conveniently deal in one judgment with all the questions raised.

(2.) Before referring to the judgments below it is necessary to examine the terms of the consent statements signed by the tenants, the terms of the pattas which were issued in pursuance of those statements, and certain of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. There were two forms of consent statements. These have been marked as Ex. A and Ex. A-1 respectively. Ex. A reads as follows: When the Settlement Officer inspected the said lands for the levying of cash theerva for the undermentioned nanjas and punjas relating to division by waram which pertain to my patta aforesaid and which are in my enjoyment in the said village, I was also present. As regards those lands I have agreed to the tharamwar division having regard to the nature of the lande set out below. I consent to the levying of compound theerva cash theerva per acre per annum for both crops inclusive of the winter and summer crops according to the rate fixed against them. As regards the bundle of sheaves kaipichai (alms) and mason and carpenter bundles to be given usually to the village servants, I shall give them personally. Besides these, I agree to pay the rate fixed per rupee in respect of the undermentioned cash theerva, magamai, swatantaram, and road cess in connection with the melwaram due to the Zamindar. If cash theerva is fixed in that manner, I am willing to obtain patta.

(3.) The word Magamai means contribution for charity and the word Swatantaram the charge made on tenants in respect of services rendered by village officers. While this statement clearly contemplates the fixing of rent on a cash basis it cannot, by reason of the concluding sentence, be read as being anything more than an undertaking by the tenant to accept a patta if a patta be drawn up in accordance with the terms mentioned in the statement signed by him. In other words, it is merely an offer by the tenant and not a completed agreement. The agreement could only be completed by the tender to the tenant of a patta drawn up in accordance with his offer.