until delivery by the tenant to the landlord, the latter's share of the crop was with the tenant. The question whether in such a case the tenant could be charged with the offence of 'theft' when he removed the share of crops payable to the landlord was referred to Oldfield, J. (In Re, Annamalai Odayar and Others – 1914 [XXII] Indian Cases 762). In that case the courts below had found that the paddy which the accused had been convicted of stealing was in the joint possession of the landlord, (complainant) and the tenant (first accused). Oldfield, J., found no reason for not applying the principle laid down in Subudhi Rantho's case (supra) to the facts of the case and held that removal by a tenant of the heap of grain (payable to the landlord) in his possession and control does not amount to 'theft' unless there was actual delivery to the landlord of his share of the grain, although, the landlord may have put a seal on the heap (of grain). The possession (of the share of grain payable to the landlord, the complainant), it was held by Oldfield, J., should, therefore have been held to be of the tenants' and the convictions for theft were found unsustainable.
