TMI Blog1935 (2) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llace, JJ., that the planting of a cocoanut garden was not an improvement under the Act and that the plaintiff was entitled to the enhanced rate. The same holdings are the subject-matter of the present suits. 2. It is conceded by the appellant that so far as patta No. 38 is concerned, the cocoanut plantation now existing is merely the old plantation, but as to patta No. 54 it is said that at the time of the former litigation only a portion, namely, 7 karukams, was planted with cocoanut plants but now a larger area is sought to be charged at the higher rate. I will refer to this question of additional area later on. Leaving this aside, two questions arise in the present second appeals. The first is whether cocoanuts are fruits and a cocoanut plantation can be regarded as a fruit garden within the meaning of Section 3(4)(f) of the Estates Land Act. So stated, this question is undoubtedly a question of law, namely, the construction of an Act, the question being whether a particular term in the Act can be so interpreted or defined as to cover a particular class of trees. 3. Now it may be said that the fruit of the cocoanut tree is not a fruit in one sense of the term but is a nut and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mer litigation arose. 6. The question how far an erroneous decision on a matter of law on the terms of a tenancy would be res judicata has been considered in three decisions of this Court. The first one is Bayyan Naidu v. Suryanarayana (1912)23MLJ543 . It was there held that a former decision as to the extent of a holding in a suit between a landlord and tenant relating to the validity of patta under the Rent Recovery Act would be res judicata in respect of later years on the ground that it decides a general question not peculiar or special for that particular year. So far as this matter is concerned, the Estates Land Act is similar to the Rent Recovery Act and if any question of general principle is settled in one litigation in respect of one year as regards the terms of patta, that would bind the parties for the future years also until new circumstances intervene. The next decision of this Court that I would refer to is Sree Rajah Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu v. Andavolu Venkataratnam (1916) 32 M.L.J. 63. There the suits related to the recovery of a cess claimed by a Zamindar from inamdars. The cess was payable annually. It was held that in cases where in a prior litigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uninfluenced by considerations that prevailed in prior years that no question should be considered as a general principle and what happened in one year-whether a matter of principle or a matter of detail-should not be used in another year and therefore the decision of one year is not res judicata for another year. If that decision is not to be explained in that way and should not be regarded as inconsistent with the decision in Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation (1926) A.C. 155. I prefer to follow the latter decision. This is practically the view accepted in Maharajah of Jeypore v. Ramamurthy AIR1933Mad925 as to these two cases. These cases have also been considered in Sankaralinga Nadar and Brothers v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1929) 58 M.L.J. 260 : I.L.R. 53 Mad. 420 (F.B.) and a similar view was taken there of the first case. 8. It is said that in cases under the Bengal Tenancy Act it has been held that a decision between landlord and tenant as to the rate of rent in a prior year does not constitute res judicata in later years when the question comes up. But even there it has been held that where the earlier decision decides a matter of general principle, it wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second appeal in the light of the above observations, and if, in his discretion, he thinks fit, he can allow those points to be raised in second appeal. It is for him and not for the Full Bench to consider this question. 10. With these observations these cases are remitted to the learned judge for disposal. Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J. 11. I agree. King, J. 12. I agree. JUDGMENT S. Varadachariar, J. 13. Now that the Full Bench have held that the decision in Vellayappa Chetty v. Subramaniam Chettiar AIR1927Mad137 will operate as res judicata in respect of the areas then in question, it follows that S.A. Nos. 1148, 1150 and 1181 of 1932 fail and must be dismissed with costs in S.A. No. 1148 of 1932 only. 14. S.A. Nos. 1149 and 1151 arising respectively from S.S. Nos. 2627 of 1923 and 3861 of 1926 relate to lands covered by patta No. 54. Even in respect of these lands, the former judgment will operate as res judicata except to the extent to which it can be said that in these second appeals which relate to later faslis the claim for rent is made in respect of lands brought under cocoanut cultivation after the date of the previous suits relating to these pattas. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve to be considered in the light of the course of conduct of the parties or usage in the neighbourhood and I must therefore disallow it also, as a point not raised up to this stage and which cannot be disposed of without further evidence. 18. Mr. Muthusami Aiyar on behalf of the respondents is unable to state definitely whether Mr. Rajah Aiyar's contention that in the old suits the claim was made and decreed only in respect of 7 karukams, whereas in the present suit the claim was made in respect of 9 karukams, is borne out by the record or not. But having regard to the fact that the rule of res judicata has got to be applied practically against the spirit of the provision made in the statute and seeing that the rule of, decision in a matter of this kind has been the subject of so many conflicting pronouncements, I am not prepared to disallow this point raised by Mr. Rajah Aiyar, which, after all, can be determined from the records of the Court or at any rate from the relevant pattas. The District Judge is accordingly requested to make a report, after giving an opportunity to both the parties to place all relevant materials before him, whether the claim in S.S. Nos. 2627 of 192 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|