9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1963 (5) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld War II. The total land in all the three villages let out to the respondent was about 727 acres. The plaintiff contended, inter-alia that the lands in suit were private iruvaram lands and not ryoti lands, that the transaction by which the respondent was let into possession was not binding on the present trustee inasmuch as it had not been entered into after obtaining the permission of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under s. 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (II of 1927), and that therefore the respondent was a trespasser. The respondent on the other hand, contended that the suit lands were ryoti lands, that in view of his being let into possession by the previous trustee he acquired the statues of a ryot under s. 3 (15) of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908) and also acquired permanent rights of occupancy under s. 6 of the said Act, that the transaction by which he was let into possession did not amount to an alienation and did not come within the purview of s. 76 of the Endowments Act. He further contended that he was not in arrears of rent, that he had paid rents up to Fasli 1356 and there was a real understanding that the realisation of rent would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act or free of rent if granted after that date, so long as the service tenure subsists." 5. It was not alleged by the appellant in its plaint or at any stage of the proceedings in the Trial Court that part of the land in suit consisted of beds of tanks and therefore did not come within the definition of ryoti land. We do not consider it fair to allow this fresh contention, relating to a question of fact to be raised at this stage, even though in some of the records of rights certain land is described as 'puramboke'. 6. The lands in suit, according to the plaint, were uncultivable waste lands covered with shrubs, jungle and the like. They had not been cultivated for a long time. Waste lands covered with shrubs, jungle and the like cannot be held to be uncultivable merely on that account or on account of their being not cultivated for a long time. Land which can be brought under cultivation is cultivable land unless some provision of law provides for holding it otherwise in certain circumstances. This is not disputed for the appellant, but what is urged on its behalf, is that land will not be cultivable land if it can be brought under cultivation only after incurring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent. In paragraph 4 of the written statement it was said "at that time the actual cash rent which was to be paid was not fixed but the defendant orally requested and was promised remission of rent as long as Government remitted water charges in this area on concessional rates of rent for some years thereafter, in view of the heavy reclamation expenses." 9. Again, in paragraph 7 it was said "the defendant at no time had agreed to the rate fixed by the trustee and had several times protested against it also." In paragraph 20 the defendant said : "The allegation in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the defendant agreed to the rate of rent at Rs. 3/9/0 per acre and then entered into possession is altogether wrong... Far from the defendant agreeing to the said rate, the defendant both orally and in writing then and on every available opportunity thereafter has been protesting against the exorbitant rate, arbitrarily and unilaterally fixed by the trustee swayed by extraneous considerations. The defendant had also informed the trustee that if only the defendant was granted the patta which was promised to him and to which he was entitled in law, he would take the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss it is necessary or beneficial to the math or temple and is sanctioned by the Board in the case of maths and excepted temples and by the committee in the case of other temples." 15. The order for the grant of patta to the respondent did not fix any period for which it was granted. It is urged for the appellant that the lease must be taken to be for a period exceeding 5 years, as in pursuance of the provisions of s. 6(1) of the Act, the respondent secured permanent right of occupancy in his holding. Such permanent right of occupancy is not conferred on the appellant on account of the term fixed in the lease. Such right is conferred by the Act on any person who is admitted by a land-holder to the possession of ryoti land. The mere admission of a ryot to the possession of ryoti land by the landholder gives that ryot the permanent right of occupancy in view of the statutory provisions of s. 6. If the Pandarasannidhi had only admitted the respondent to the ryoti land for a period less than five years, even then the result would have been that the respondent would have acquired a permanent right of occupancy in his holding. We are of opinion that the mere fact that s. 6 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
