S.K. Kadirvelsami Naicker by his authorised agent, C. Chockalingam Pillai vs S.P. Sultan Ahmed Badruddin Rowther (died) and Others

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—The appellant is the zamindar of Yerasackanaickanoor. He brought the suit which has given rise to this

appeal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul to recover from the respondents the amount of Rs. 10,637-6-3, which he claimed to be

due to him by way of rent under a lease dated the 16th December, 1930. The lease was granted by the plaintiff''s prede-cessor-in-title for the

purpose of cardamom cultivation. It was for a period of fifteen years and covered 475 acres of forest land, all of which fell within the boundaries of

the zamindary. The defendants took exception to the jurisdiction of the Court. They claimed that they were entitled to permanent rights of

occupancy in respect of the whole area covered by the lease and consequently the Revenue Court alone had jurisdiction. The plaintiff maintained

that he was entitled to sue in the Civil Court because cardamom cultivation was not agriculture within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act.

He also said that 125 acres were pannai lands, which meant that in any event he had the right to sue in the Civil Court to recover a proportionate

amount of the arrears of rent. The learned Subordinate Judge held that cardamom cultivation was agriculture within the definition given in the

statute, but he allowed the plaintiff''s claim that 125 acres of the 475 acres represented pannai lands. Therefore the suit lay in the Subordinate

Court to recover a proportionate amount of the arrears, but the Subordinate Judge dismissed it in its entirety on the ground that the plaintiff had not

attempted to differentiate between the pannai lands and the other lands in his plaint. He did recognise that the plaintiff was entitled to sue in the Civil

Court in respect of the pannai lands, but he thought that in the circumstances, the plaintiff should be relegated to a separate suit.

The plaintiff has appealed. In the first place he says that the Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the cardamom cultivation is agriculture within

the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act and in the second place he says that he should have been given a decree for the arrears of rent due in

respect of the 125 acres of pannai lands. Both sides have accepted the finding that 125 of the 475 acres represent pannai lands.

Section 3(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act defines ""agriculture"" as follows : ""Agriculture with its grammatical variations and cognate

expressions shall include horticulture."" The Oxford Dictionary''s definition is : "" the science and art of cultivating the soil, including the allied pursuits

of gathering in the crops and rearing live-stock, tillage, husbandry, farming (in the widest sense)."" The dictionary definition may be too widely

drawn to apply in its entirety to the Madras Estates Land Act. For instance, land let for the rearing of live-stock may not come within the definition,

although we do not propose to express a definite opinion on the point. But what is clear is that the word "" agriculture "" implies something which is

achieved with the aid of human agency, as was pointed out by this Court in the Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi Gangadhara Rama Rao

Bahadur, Yuvarajah of Pithapuram and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, . Cardamom cultivation requires the aid of human agency.

Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar, on behalf of the appellant, has agreed that cardamom cultivation involves three stages. In the first place, the seeds

are sown in beds where they germinate and are left to grow for six months. Then they are transplanted into another bed where they are left to grow

for a further six months. This is the second stage. The third stage is the replanting of the young plants in the forests. They are permanently planted

there as cardamom cultivation demands a considerable amount of shade. Therefore, the human element plays an important part in the bringing of

cardamom plants to fruition..

In support of his argument that cardamom cultivation is not agriculture, Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar has laid stress on the decision of this

Court in Srimath Jagathguru Sringeri Sri Satchithanantha Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal by Agent T.C. Nataraja Mudali Vs. C.P. Duraiswami

Naidu (dead) and Others, and the judgment of the Privy Council in Kesho Prasad Singh v. Sheo Pragash Ojha (1924) 47 M.L.J. 824 : L.R. 51

IndAp 381 : ILR 46 All. 831 (P.C.).

In the first of these cases the question was whether the growing of casuarina trees for fuel by a ryot on land forming part of an estate within the

meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, was agriculture. The learned Judges (Reilly and Ananthakrishna Aiyar, JJ.) held that it was not, but

admittedly their judgment is in conflict with the opinion expressed by Spencer and Ramesam, JJ. in Pavadai Pathan and Another Vs. Ramaswami

Chetty and Others, . There is a vast difference between the cultivation of cardamoms which are grown for human consu mption and the growing of

''casuarina trees for fuel. If the judgment in Srimath Jagathguru Sringeri Sri Satchithanantha Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal by Agent T.C.

Nataraja Mudali Vs. C.P. Duraiswami Naidu (dead) and Others, were in point, we should feel compelled to refer this case to a Full Bench in view

of its conflict with the judgment in Pavadai Pathan and Another Vs. Ramaswami Chetty and Others, but it is manifest that the decision in Srimath

Jagathguru Sringeri Sri Satchithanantha Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal by Agent T.C. Nataraja Mudali Vs. C.P. Duraiswami Naidu (dead)

and Others, has no bearing here.

The decision of the Privy Council in Kesho Prasad Singh v. Sheo Pragash Ojha (1924) 47 M.L.J. 824 : L.R. 51 IndAp 381 : ILR 46 All. 831

(P.C.) provides no greater help for the appellant. In that case the question was whether the planting of a mango grove was agriculture within the

meaning of Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1901. The Judicial Committee held that it was not, but the definition of agriculture in the Agra

Tenancy Act and the definition of the term in the Madras Estates Land Act are not the same. In the Madras Estates Land Act, agriculture includes

horticulture, but horticulture is not included in the definition of agriculture in the Agra Tenancy Act. We may here mention that this Court in Sarojini

Devi v. Sri Krishna Anjaneya Subramaniam (1944) 1 M.L.J. 361 : 1944 F.L.J. 146 : ILR 5 Lah. 50 (P.C.) held that a mango grove was

agricultural land within the meaning of the Hindu Women''s Rights to Property Act.

In Kaju Mal v. Saligram (1923) 46 M.L.J. 536 : L.R. 51 IndAp 11 the Privy Council held that the words ""agricultural purposes"" in Section 2(3)

of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act of 1900 include the cultivation of tea. Now if the cultivation of tea is agriculture it is very difficult to see why

the cultivation of cardamoms should not be agriculture, especially as in the Madras Estates Land Act, agriculture includes horticulture which

embraces the growing of fruits. Cardamoms are the seeds of the fruit of the cardamom plant. Therefore, if the growing of cardamoms does not

come within the ordinary meaning of the word "" agriculture ""--we are of opinion that it does--it certainly comes within the meaning of the word as

used in the Madras Estates Land Act, because there agriculture expressly includes horticulture. For these reasons, we agree with the Subordinate

Judge that the defendants have a right of permanent occupancy of the area covered by the lease, excluding the 125 acres of pannai lands, and

therefore the landholder''s remedy in respect of the balance of 350 acres is in the Revenue Court and not in the Civil Court.

We disagree with the Subordinate Judge in his dismissal of the suit in so far as the 125 acres of pannai lands are concerned. The apportionment

of the rent is a very easy matter and the dismissal of the suit with regard to the pannai lands can only mean delay, further expense and waste of

judicial time. The Court is informed by learned Counsel that in the trial Court the defendants were agreeable to a decree being passed against them

for the amount of arrears of rent due by them in respect of the pannai lands. Both sides are now agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for

Rs. 2,431-3-0 in respect of the pannai lands and the appeal will be allowed to this extent. The plaintiff will have interest at the. Court rate from the

date of the plaint to the date of decree on the Rs. 2,431-3-0 and further interest on the decretal amount from the date of decree until payment or

realisation. He will have costs here and below on the decretal amount, but he will pay costs in both the Courts on his claim in respect of the 350

acres, namely, Rs. 8,206-3-3.

The defendants paid an advance of Rs. 4,500. We have not taken this into account in arriving at the figure of Rs. 2,431-3-0. The adjudgment

will be made when the occasion is fitting.