1936 (10) TMI 12 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of registry and patta issuance in Guruvamma's name.
2. Validity of decrees obtained by the proprietor for rent.
3. Applicability of Section 147 of the Estates Land Act.
4. Impact of subsequent transfers and the knowledge of the landlord.
5. Validity of the mortgage Ex. A and its implications under Section 125 of the Estates Land Act.
6. Procedural questions regarding the applicability of Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, in the context of the Estates Land Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Registry and Patta Issuance in Guruvamma's Name:
The properties in question were ryoti lands, initially mortgaged by Ragaviah and Muthuswamy Aiyah. Upon their deaths, the lands were recorded in Guruvamma's name, despite Subbamma being the legal representative of Raghaviah. The court found no fraudulent intention by the landlord in registering the lands under Guruvamma's name. It was concluded that Subbamma and Nageswara Aiyah likely consented to this arrangement, as evidenced by their lack of objection and the amicable living situation among the parties involved.

2. Validity of Decrees Obtained by the Proprietor for Rent:
The proprietor obtained six decrees for rent between 1915 and 1928. Only one of these suits included Subbamma as a party, but she died during the litigation, and no legal representative was brought on record. The court held that the landlord was justified in treating Guruvamma as representing the estate for the purpose of these suits, given the circumstances and the knowledge of the parties involved.

3. Applicability of Section 147 of the Estates Land Act:
The court noted that Section 147 relieved the landholder of the duty to find the rightful tenant only in cases of transfers, not succession. However, the principle recognized in previous cases allowed the landlord to treat the person in possession as the tenant if they believed that person was legally entitled. This principle was applied to uphold the validity of the decrees, Exs. II and II-A, against Guruvamma.

4. Impact of Subsequent Transfers and the Knowledge of the Landlord:
The court addressed the validity of decrees, Exs. II-B, II-C, and II-D, obtained against Guruvamma after the properties were sold under Ex. K. It was held that the transferees, who did not take steps to register themselves as pattadars, could not punish the landlord for ignorance of the transfer. The vendees were on notice of the property's liability for rent, and the landlord had no objection to including them in subsequent suits.

5. Validity of the Mortgage Ex. A and Its Implications Under Section 125 of the Estates Land Act:
The mortgage Ex. A, executed by Subbamma, was acknowledged in a later mortgage, Ex. C. The court held that the benefit under Section 125 of the Estates Land Act should be recognized in favor of the plaintiffs to the extent of Ex. A. The existence of a decree on Ex. C did not extinguish Ex. A to the detriment of the mortgagee. The court emphasized that the charge created by the Estates Land Act for rent is not in the nature of a mortgage, and the mortgagee's rights under Ex. A were preserved.

6. Procedural Questions Regarding the Applicability of Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code:
The court acknowledged the complexity and lack of clarity in applying the claim procedure of Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, in the context of the Estates Land Act. It was noted that while Section 89 of the Estates Land Act provides for claims in cases of distraint of movable property, there is no equivalent provision for immovable property. The court suggested that some of these procedural questions might be better addressed by the legislature.

Conclusion:
The second appeal was allowed to the extent of declaring the appellant's entitlement to execute all decrees, Exs. II, II-A, II-B, II-C, II-D, and II-E. The case was remanded to the first instance court to work out the parties' rights in accordance with the principles laid down. The court also justified the learned Judge's conclusion on the charge under Section 125 of the Estates Land Act and dismissed the memorandum of objections. The procedural complexities raised were acknowledged but left open for legislative clarification.