RAJA VELUGOTI SARBAGNA KUMARA KRISHNA YACHENDRA Vs. NOOKALAPATI RAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant 1 is the appellant in this second appeal which has been filed against a decree awarding possession and mesne profits to the plaintiffs. The property described in the suit consists of two items, Section no. 492 of the extent of 3 acres 20 cents of wet land and Section No. 12 of the extent of 7 acres 43 cents of dry land. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the ryoti interest in the lands. Defendant 1 (the Zamindar of Venkatagiri) is the landholder and his defence is that the holding has been validly sold for arrears of rent at his instance and purchased by him through his agent. Defendant 2 disclaims all interest in the suit, but his wife, defendant 3, claimed that she had been admitted to possession of the first item as a ryot by defendant 1 after his purchase at the rent sale. The judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is very meagre and unsatisfactory and does not deal either with the evidence or with the points that arise for decision.

(2.) The events that have led to this litigation have to be narrated in order to appreciate the contentions of the learned advocate for the appellant. Veera Reddi and after him, his son, were the registered pattadars of the lands in question. Veera Reddi's son sold the lands to one Rami Reddi under Ex. P-1 dated 31st March 1926. Rami Reddi was adjudicated an insolvent on 30th January 1932 whereupon the lands vested in the receiver who sold them in due course of administration, under Ex. P. 4 dated 9th October 1935 to one Gopalakrishna Reddi who in his turn conveyed them to the plaintiffs under Ex. P.-5 dated 9th January 1936. The plaintiffs claim title to the property under these transactions. Defendant 1's case with reference to item 1 is somewhat different from his case regarding Item 2. With reference to Item 1, his plea, is that it has been sold under a summary sale for arrears of rent under Chap. VI, Estates Land Act and purchased by him through his agent on 11th July 1929. This plea is untenable in view of the subsequent proceedings taken by the landholder himself. He brought a suit R. S. No. 4 of 1930 under Section 77, Madras Estates, Land Act (hereinafter called the Act) for arrears of rent of faslis 1336 to 1338 in respect of Item 1 impleading as defendants, 3 persons, namely, Veera Reddi's son the registered pattadar, Rami Reddi the purchaser of the holding from him and one Krishna Reddi, a subsequent purchaser of a part of the holding from Rami Reddi. There was a compromise decree passed on 29th September 1981 and in execution thereof item 1 was sold and purchased by the land-holder on 20th February 1935, It is clear, therefore, that the proceedings which culminated in the rent sale of 11th July 1929 were inoperative to extinguish the ryoti interest. From the cultivation accounts, the adangal and kist collection records of defendant 1, it appears that one Sheikh Alla Baksh was in cultivating possession of Item 1 from fasli 1344 and paying rent to defendant 1. He sold Item 1 to defendant 3 his daughter and she paid rent to defendant 1 in 1940 and 194S and is now in possession of this item. Item 2 of the suit properties was brought to sale under the summary procedure prescribed in Chap. VI of the Act and purchased by defendant 1 on 27th November 1932. Possession was also delivered to him on 26th June 1933.

(3.) The present suit was brought on 6th January 1943 and the plaintiffs maintain that the rent sales of Items l and 2 were illegal and void and did not extinguish the ryoti interest of Rami Reddi or the receiver in the holding. Notice of the sale proceedings not having been issued to him. Defendant 1's contention is that neither Rami Reddi nor the Receiver was ever recognised as a ryot, that he was not bound in law to recognise them as ryot in the absence of the notice required by Section 145 of the Act, that neither Rami Reddi nor the receiver ever paid rent for the land and that the rent sales were regularly held. It is desirable to consider the case with reference to Item 1 separately from Item 2 for the considerations applicable to the two items differ in material respects.