LAKSHMINARANAPPA AND Vs. MYSORE PROVINCIAL CO OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTDAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this appeal relates to Jodi Kittane village which is said to contain 28 vrittis owned by 51 sharers. Defendant 1 is the holder of 1 1/2 vrittis in the said village. The plaintiff in the suit, from which this appeal arises, claims to have purchased the entire jodi village in an auction sale held by Government for arrears of revenue due on the holding for the year 1933-34. The suit was filed for possession of items 1 to 9 of the suit schedule properties which are alleged to be in the possession and enjoyment at defendant 1. Defendant 1 had, prior to the revenue sale, granted items 2 to 9 to defendant 2 on a permanent lease. The plaintiff has alternatively claimed a decree for all the rights of defendant 1 in items 2 to 9 in addition to actual possession of item 1. An additional claim for mesne profits is also laid in the suit. The plea of defendant 1 is, in main, that the suit properties belonged to her permanent kadim tenancy rights and the plaintiff who has only purchased the jodidar's rights is not entitled to possession of the suit items. The trial court held that the plaintiff is only entitled to recover kandayam due to the jodidars from items 1 to 9 and disallowed the rest of the claim. On appeal, the learned District Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit granting the alternative claim for possession of item 1 and for the rights of defendant 1 against defendant 2. The legal representatives of defendant l since deceased, have preferred this appeal against that decision.

(2.) Sri Lakshminarayana Rao, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant, raised two contentions namely, that the revenue sale did not have the effect of transferring the rights of defendant 1 in the jodi village and even it admitting, but not conceding, that the entire jodi village was sold, the sale did not affect the right to possession of items 1 to 9 which belonged to defendant 1 as the permanent or kadim tenant thereof. The argument in respect of the first contention is based on exhibit C the order of forfeiture, wherein a mention is made of two persons as the defaulters and in consequence, the sale in pursuance of forfeiture must be deemed to be the right, title and interest of only the defaulters named therein. It is difficult to accede to this argument. In the written statement, defendant 1 has admitted that what is sold is the right to collect the jodi of the entire village, nor could exhibit C be interpreted as the sale confined only to the shares of the defaulters named therein. It is not shown that all the 51 sharers in the village have been registered as 'occupants'.

(3.) Section 54, Land Revenue Code, provided that arrears of land revenue is a paramount charge on the holding and every part thereof and empowers the Deputy Commissioner to forfeit the occupancy or holding and sell the same free from all tenures, rights and encumbrances created by the occupant or his predecessor-in-title. The section also stated that all the rights created by any occupant or his predecessor-in-title shall become liable 'unless the Deputy Commissioner otherwise directs'. Whether the sale and forfeiture is confined to the shares of the persons named in exhibit C, has to be determined by the examination of the history of the sale proceedings. Exhibit A is the notice of demand Issued to Seshadri lyengar and Lingappa. Exhibits I and II are similar notices, to the Apex Bank at Hassan and Bangalore respectively. Exhibit B is the attachment list dated 11-3-1934 giving the estimated value of the village to be Rs. 30,000/-. In Exhibit C, the entire village has been forfeited. In col. 7 of exhibit D the properties forfeited are described as the 'entire village' and the extent and assessment stated therein accord with the actual figures of the full holding; so also in exhibit E, the proclamation of sale published in the Gazette. In exhibits C and D the names or defaulters are mentioned as Seshadri Keshava lyengar and Lingappa. Exhibits E and P name the defaulters as Jodidar Seshadri Keshava lyengar and others. In exhibit B, the attachment list, the khatedar's name is stated to be 'Sri Rameswam Deity', Lingappa, Seshadri Keshava Iyengar and others': In Exhibit F, the document relating to the confirmation of sale, the name of khatedar is stated to be 'Lingappa and others'. Exhibit H is the confirmation of sale which puts down the khatedars as Lingappa and others; exhibit J the sale certificate, and exhibit L, the delivery receipt, also indicate that the entire village was dealt with. It is not denied that defendant 1 was one of the defaulters in payment of the land revenue. Admittedly, the arrears for which the sale was held represented the entire revenue due to Government for the year 1933-34. The entire Jodi payable to Government by all the sharers amounts to about Rs. 300/- and it cannot, therefore, be said that the two persons are the defaulters in respect of Rs. 1300/-. Hence, the arrears did not relate to the shares of persons named in the documents. Clause (17) of Section 3, Land Revenue Code, describes the 'registered occupant' as a sole occupant or the eldest or principal of several joint occupants whose name is authorisedly entered in the Government, records; and an 'occupant' is described as a holder of land or, when there are more holders than one, the holder having the highest right in respect of any such land. Note 3 to Rule 9 under the 'Inam Rights' published in the Revenue Manual prescribes that subsequent alienees who derive their titles from the gifts made by the original holders of inams should not be entered in col. 15 of the said, register. It is not shown that defendant 1 is the registered occupant, nor is she the holder of a recognised share assessed separately. Seshadri lyengar and Lingappa are represented to be the Patel and Shanbhogue respectively and they are thus the principal persons representing the jodi rights. The forfeiture and sale records entered in the name of the principal jodidars representing the entire village cannot be characterised as irregular. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that what is sold is the entire village represented by the principal jodidars.