Dismissed

Subbaiyan(Died) v. Naseer Ahamed (a) Haj Muhamad

Madras HC28 Jun 2021SA/1206/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Second Appeal arising from a lease suit for recovery of agricultural produce values was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court's decree based on the defendant's admission of crop yields and lack of proof regarding single-crop cultivation or uncropped land.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Subbaiyan(Died) Vs Naseer Ahamed (a) Haj Muhamad — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶5

S.A.NO.1206 OF 2011 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2011

¶6

1.Subbaiyan (died) 2.S.Gnanaprakasam 3.S.Gunasekaran

¶7

4.S.Navaselvi

¶8

5.S.Sivarajan ...Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Vs.

¶9

Nazeer Ahamed (a) Haj Muhamad ...Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent

¶10

(Appellants 2 to 5 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 1^st appellant vide Court order dated 09.04.2021 made in C.M.P.No.590 to 592 of 2016 in S.A.No.1206 of 2011 by PTAJ)

¶11

PRAYER:

¶12

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.12.2010 made in A.S.No.75 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Mayilladuthurai confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 10.09.2009 in O.S.No.195 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayilladuthurai.

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The defendant is the appellant before this Court. The appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.75 of

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Mayilladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.195 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayilladuthurai. The parties are referred to in the same array as in the suit.

¶17

2.The facts in brief which are necessary for disposing of the above Second Appeal are as follows:

¶18

The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.31,075/with interest and costs being the value of the agricultural produce from the Nanja property leased out to him by the defendant which was the lease rental payable by the defendant. The plaintiff would contend that the suit property measuring an extent of 2.87 cents was leased out to the defendant for a period of 25 years. The lease in question was an agricultural lease. As per the terms of the lease, the defendant was obligated to give a share in the produce. However, the defendant committed default in payment of the agreed rent. The suit was filed with reference to the Faslis 1415, 1416 and 1417 for the corresponding English Calendar year being 31.03.2006, 31.03.2007 and 31.03.2008, respectively.

¶19

3.The case of the plaintiff was that he was entitled to 45 Kalams out of 180 Kalam for Fasli 1415, 50 Kalam out of 200 Kalam for Fasali 1416. The values of paddy for Fasali 1415 was Rs.160/- per Kalam, for Fasali 1416 was a sum of Rs.170/- per Kalam and for Fasali 1417, it was Rs.175/- per Kalam. Likewise, in respect of pulses, for Fasli 1415, the share of the plaintiff was ½ Kalam at Rs.900/- per Kalam, for Fasali 1416, 2 ½ Kalam at Rs.1,000/- per Kalam and 2 ½ Kalam at Rs.1,100/- per Kalam for Fasali 1417. Since the paddy and pulses as agreed was not given, the plaintiff demanded its money equivalent to the tune of Rs.7,075/-.

¶20

4.The defendant denied the allegations contained in the Plaint and contended that he has been in possession of the property for over 100 years and had built a house with the consent of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, namely, A.Mohammed Gani. He would contend that the application filed for eviction was dismissed by the revenue Court, and further, the crops raised for the three faslis were destroyed and no pulses were harvested during these faslis. He had also questioned the claim as being untenable. The defendant would contend that the claim was highly exorbitant and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

¶21

5.The trial Court had framed two issues, namely,

¶22

"(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to lease arrears for the Fasli areas 1415, 1416 and 1417?

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

(2)Whether it is true that the crops for the Faslis 1415 to 1417 were destroyed? and (3)To what other relief?."

¶25

6.On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. The defendant had examined himself as D.W.1 and had examined an Official of the Revenue Department as D.W.2. and through an independent witness, Ex.X.1 was marked.

¶26

7.The learned Principal District Munsif, taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant, came to the conclusion that for every fasli at the most there would be an yield of 80 Kalams of paddy per crop. Further, only if pulses are raised properly it would yield three Kalams. The learned Judge further arrived at the conclusion from the submissions that 40 Kalams (20 bags of 60 Kgs) per acre is the minimum and 60 Kalam is the maximum per acre. The trial Court has made the following calculations:

¶27

“The lease arrears are calculated for two crop paddy and one crop of pulses:

¶28

(a)For Fasli 1415 – Paddy 20 Kalam x 1600 = 3200 x 2 = 6,400/- Pulses – ¾ x 900 = 675/(b)For Fasli 1416 – Paddy 20 Kalam x 170 = 3400 x 2 = 6,400/- Pulses – ¾ x 1000 = 750/-

¶29

(c)For Fasli 1417 – Paddy 20 Kalam x 175 = 3500 x 2 = 7,000/- Pulses – ¾ x 1100 = 825/-.”

¶30

Hence, the total sum arrived as rent towards share of crops arrived at Rs.22,450/- instead of the suit claim of Rs.31,075/-.”

¶31

8.Challenging the said Judgment and Decree, the defendant herein had filed an Appeal and the Appellate Court had also confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. Challenging this Judgment and Decree, the defendant is before this Court.

¶32

9.The Second Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law:

¶33

“(1)Whether Court below is right in granting relief in without prayer in the suit that is decree in the suit for two crops when the pleading is for one crop?

¶34

(2)Whether Court below is right in quantifying the base crop on applying common sense without any oral documentary evidence?”

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

10.Ms.Jothi, learned counsel who made her submissions on behalf of the appellant would contend that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and totally overlooked the fact and that there is no agricultural activity and further residential buildings have been built over the suit property. She would further contend that the Courts below have overlooked the evidence of the Revenue officials who had deposed that the defendant was cultivating only a single crop since he did not have the facilities of pumpset and therefore, the quantum that has been fixed is without any basis. That apart, the Courts below have not taken into account the failure of the crops.

¶37

11.Per contra, Mr.S. Sounthar, learned counsel appearing for the defendant would submit that the very quantum was arrived at only on the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant. In fact, though the learned counsel had conceded that there would be an yield of 80 Kalam with respect to paddy per crop. He had further conceded a minimum of 40 Kalam per acre and a maximum of 60 Kalam per acre. The learned Judge had applied common-sense and observed that for an extent of the suit property, there would be a minimum of 112 Kalam for a total extent of 2.87 acres. The learned Judge had taken note of the uncultivated area and also the failure of crops for fasli 1415 and taken 80 Kalam as the quantity of produce and 20 Kalam that was to be given to the plaintiff and ultimately, arrived at a decree for Rs.22,450/-. He would therefore submit that the Courts below have taken note of all the factors and arrived at the Decree. He would also submit that both the Courts below had given reasons for their finding and not believing the defendant's contention that it was only a single pokam land and not a double pokam land. In fact, the Appellate Court has compared the discrepancies in the pleading of the defendant and the evidence adduced. He would submit that no exception can be taken to the Judgment and Decree under Appeal and the same has to be confirmed, considering the fact that the Courts below have assessed the evidence on record from its correct perspective.

¶38

12.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the papers.

¶39

13.Two arguments have been put forward by the appellant (1) that there was no proof for arriving at the Decree amount and (2)that there was no proof for the harvesting of two crops.

¶40

14.As regards the first point of argument which is the second Question of Law, the Courts below have relied upon the statement of the counsel appearing for the defendant. Further, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has taken into account the land lying uncultivated, the damage to the crops, etc., and thereafter, worked out the quantum. The defendant has

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

not given any reason for countenancing the same. Therefore, the Substantial Question of Law No.2 is answered against the appellant.

¶43

15.As regards the second contention regarding a number of crops raised during the harvest season, the Revenue Records clearly shows the lands to be “,Unghfk; land” The defendant who would contend that it was only one pokam land and that only one crop was raised had not produced the relevant Adangal records which would clearly prove the number of harvesting done. The defendant has kept away the vital evidence from the Court and adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendant. That apart, the land in question of a Nanja land with the Channel running close to the land. It is immaterial that the appellant/defendant has deliberately not cultivated the land cannot deprive the plaintiff of his share of the produce. Therefore, the Substantial Question of Law No.1 is also answered against the defendant/appellant.

¶44

In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶49

mps

¶50

¶51

1.The Principal Sub Judge, Mayilladuthurai.

¶52

2.The Principal District Munsif, Mayilladuthurai.

¶53

Copy To

¶54

The Section Officer, VR.Section,

¶55

High Court, Madras.

¶56

+1cc to Mr.S. Sounthar, Advocate, S.R.No.29712

¶57

S.A.No.1206 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶58

GSM(CO) PM/29/10/2021

¶59

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Subbaiyan(Died) v. Naseer Ahamed (a) Haj Muhamad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subbaiyan(Died) v. Naseer Ahamed (a) Haj Muhamad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswathi Vs Marappa Gounder

E.Rajamanicka Mudaliyar (Deceased) Vs T.Tamaraiselvam

Natarajan Vs Devaraj Padyachi

Haji S.M.Bathuruddin Vs T.Madurambia Ammal

Venugopal Vs Krishnaveni

K.Duraisamy, Vs R.Mohan