- (1.) In this appeal on a certificate the appellant was the original Defendant No. 1 in a suit filed by the respondent under S. 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, seeking a direction for the grant of a patta to him in regard to the suit land. The suit was decreed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, who fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 1-8-0 per mah, the land being about 64 acres or 192 mahs.
(2.) This land originally belonged to what was known as the Tanjore Palace Estate, and by a suit of 1919, it fell to the share of Ry. Shivaji Rajah Saheb of Tanjore (Palace). It came into the possession and ownership of the appellant by virtue of a sale on foot of a mortgage decree obtained by his father in a suit of 1926. The appellant obtained possession in 1936. While the suit was pending, the property was in the possession of four minors through their maternal uncle, who was appointed as their guardian by the District Court, West Tanjore. In 1932, the respondent took the suit property on lease from the guardian for 3 years, by a lease deed dated July 30, 1932. Under this lease, the respondent remained in possession and enjoyment of this property till June 30, 1935, cultivating it as he allegged, under pannai cultivation. During the execution proceedings, however, a receiver was appointed and on May 12, 1935, the receiver granted a lease for 3 years from July 1, 1935. After the appellant entered into possession, he executed on August 13, 1936, a fresh lease deed for two years (faslis 1346 and 1347) and till the suit, according to the respondent he continued in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property. The claim was made under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, as amended by the Third Amendment Act of 1936, under which occupancy rights vested in a person who was in direct an actual possession of the land on June 30, 1934. The respondent, therefore, claimed the protection of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, and thus to be entitled to a patta in occupancy right on payment of a fair rent suggesting Rs. 1-8-0 per mah as the fair rent.
(3.) The appellant contended that the land in question known as Pattiswaram Thattimal Padugai was included in a revenue village, Thenam Padugai Thattimal, and was neither an entire village nor an estate or part of an estate, and that thus the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act did not apple to it, because the land in question was not ryoti land. It was also averred by the appellant that the respondent was a mere farmer of revenue, that is to say, an intermediate lessee, who was not cultivating the suit laud himself or in pannai or with the help of hired labour. Various other pleas were raised, but to them no reference is necessary, because the arguments in this Court i were limited to the consideration of the findings on Issues 1 to 3 framed in the original suit. Those Issues were : "(1) Is the village wherein the suit properties are situated an inam within the meaning of Act XVIII of 1936 Was it an Estate prior to the enactment of Act XVIII of 1936 or did it become an Estate under the provisions of the Act (2) Is the Plaintiff a mere lessee or farmer of rent or the actual cultivator of the suit lands . (3) is the Plaintiff a ryot entitled to occupancy rights under Act XVIII of 1936 for the reliefs claimed in the plaint - The suit, as already stated, was decreed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. On appeal, the District Judge of West Tanjure, dismissed the appeal, but modified the rent to Rs. 4/- per mah as the proper and equitable rate of rent. On further appeal to the High Court, the judgment and decree of the District Judge were confirmed with the modification that the rent was determined, at Rs.7/- per mah, and Rs. 1,350/- were fixed as a lump sum. There was a cross-objection, which was also dismissed.;