Narayanasami Reddy vs Veerasami Reddy and Another

Wadsworth, J.—The question in this revision petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of an agriculturist, having regard to

the terms of Proviso (D) to Section 3(ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938.

The petitioner was at the time of his application the landholder of more than one estate. The total peshkush payable in respect of these estates

exceeded Rs. 500, but no one of the estates paid so much as Rs. 500 peshkush. Petitioner contends therefore that he is not the landholder of an

estate in respect of which estate a sum exceeding Rs. 500 is paid as peshkush. We are unable to accept this contention. Reading the definition

along with Section 3(35) of the Madras General Clauses Act, we must hold that the definition is to be read as covering a landholder of an estate or

estates, in respect of which estate or estates a sum exceeding Rs. 500 is paid as peshkush. That is the view taken by the Court below.

It is also suggested that the petitioner comes within the definition of agriculturist because in one of the estates standing in his name he is not the

real owner. We cannot accept this contention. A landholder u/s 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act is a person owning an estate and includes

every person entitled to collect the rents of the estate. There is no doubt that in respect of the estate which was purchased in Court auction in the

name, of the applicant, he was either the owner or the person entitled to collect the rents.

In the result therefore the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.