At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WADSWORTH
For the Petitioner: N.G. Krishnamachari, Advocate. For the Respondents: V. Subramaniam, Advocate.
(Petition (disposed of on 3-7-1942) under S. 25 of Act IX of 1887 praying the High Court to revise the decree of the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada dated 5-8-1940 in S.C.S. No. 1772 of 1939.)
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he only question in this revision petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. Admittedly he is a mokhasadar paying Rs. 150 per annum to the Zamindar of Talaprole under an ancient tenure, the origin of which is rather obscure. We know that a proposal to enfranchise the inam fell through at the time of the Inam Commission, and that the lands continued to be held on a payment varying with the yield, of Rs. 4 per putti upto 1889, on which date there was an agreement be tween the Zamindar and the Mokhasadar, that instead of this varying payment an annual sum of Rs. 600 should be paid “towards the cist,” the mokhasadars pledging themselves to pay the meras and cesses. It is contended that this annual payment, of which the defendant's share is Rs. 150, cannot be described as quit rent, jodi, poruppu or the like so as to disqualify the defendant under proviso D to S. 3(ii) of the Act from being an agriculturist. It seems to me apparent that the only difference between the annual payment made by these mokhasadars and the quit rent paid on other old inams is that the rate in the present case was fixed not at the time of the Inam Commission, but by the subsequent agreement with the Zamindar. I have no doubt that the defendant and his fellow mokhasadars are landholders and that they hold their estate on a fixed and favourable rate of rent and that such fixed favourable rent payable in respect of their enjoyment of a portion of the proprietor's rights to the principal proprietor is in the nature of a quit rent or kattubadi .A point of limitation has been raised, but as it was not pleaded in the written statement, and if it had been pleaded, might have been met by a slight amendment of the plaint, I do not think it proper to allow it to be argued in revision.The revision petition is therefore dismissed with costs.
" 1942 (55) LW 610"