G.T. Oliver, Esq., Receiver and Manager of the estate of the late Maharajah of Tanjore vs Markanda Aiyan and Others

In S. A. No. 750 of 1892

It is no doubt found by the courts below that the Ijara system has been in force for seventy years under agreements executed for limited periods

and upon this finding it is contended for the appellant that a contract to adopt the Ijara system for ever ought to have been implied as a matter of

law. The District Munsif refers to the oral and documentary evidence as to the circumstances under which the Ijara system was adopted or

discontinued from time to time and concludes that the understanding was that the Amani system was to be reverted to whenever the parties could

not agree to the Ijara system. On appeal the Subordinate Judge finds ""on the evidence and probabilities"" that the receiver cannot compel the

mirasidars to accept the Ijara system against their wishes.

Having regard to the occasions on which the Ijara system was departed from, as pointed out by the District Munsif in paragraphs 8 and 9 of his

judgment, we cannot say that there was no evidence in which the courts could hold that the presumption pointed out in the Full Bench case in

Venkatagopal v. Rangappa, I. L. R 7 M 365 was rebutted.

Our attention is called to the decision of this Court in Second Appeals Nos. 1157 to 1237 of 1889 in which the finding of the courts below that

Ijara pattas should be accepted was upheld by this Court. Those decisions clearly do not operate as res judicata as those suits were instituted in a

Revenue Court, Cf. Rama v. Tirtasami, I. L. R 7 M 61

This second appeal cannot be supported. We dismiss it with costs.

Second Appeals Nos. 751 to 754 follow.