AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Moore and Sankaran Nair, JJ.—It is contended before us on behalf of the defendant that no exchange of pattas and muchilikas is necessary
as the plaintiff holds the land as an Inamdar and the amount payable by him is not rent in the ordinary acceptation of the word, payable by a tenant
to a landlord but only road-cess and russum.
An affidavit is filed before us on behalf of the plaintiff to show that he is a cultivating tenant paying rent and that the case, therefore, does not fall
within the rule in Lakshminaraynna Pantulu v. Venkatrayanam I.L.R(1897) M. 116.
It is not clear from the judgments what is the nature of the tenure under which the land is held. We, therefore, direct the lower appellate Court to
return a finding on the question what is the nature of the tenure on which the land now in suit is held by the plaintiff. Fresh evidence may be taken.
The, finding should be returned within two months and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.
In compliance with the above order, the District Judge submitted the following
JUDGMENT
In Second Appeal No. 560 of 1904: - We are unable to agree with Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar''s interpretation of the decision in Nallayappa Pillian v.
Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi I.L.R(1903) M. 465, and we consider that the meaning to be attached to the language used by the Court in that
case is that stated in Muthusami Pillai Vs. Arunachallam Chettiar and Another, . Following that case we are of opinion that the defendant, the
superior landholder, was not required to exchange, patta and muchilika with the plaintiff, an inamdar holding under him. The circumstance that the
plaintiff happens to possess ''the kudivaram right in the property in respect of which he was also Inamdar bound to pay ""russum"" to the landholder
does not alter the case or impose upon the land-holder, an obligation which would not otherwise subsist between him and the Inamdar.
We, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and remand the case for disposal by the Court of First Instance. Costs will abide and
follow the result.
Second Appeal No. 561 of 1904 follows.