AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Walsh, J.—In this case the accused was convicted of resisting a distraint made by the complainant u/s 212, Clause 1(b), Madras Estates
Land Act. The complainant described himself in the complaint as an inamdar in the village of Chukkavalsa. All the accused executed a kadapa for
three years at a rent of Rs. 102 a year. u/s 134(2) a distraint can only be made in these circumstances from a tenant from whom the inamdar has
taken a written agreement stating a fixed rent to be paid by the tenant. The rental agreement is not on stamped paper nor is it registered though it
requires to be both stamped and registered. The trial Court apparently did not notice the want of registration and held that the want of stamp did
not invalidate it from being used as evidence in a criminal case.
In the appellate Court the question as to want of registration was dealt with and the learned Subdivisional Magistrate says as follows:
According to Section 52(1), Estates Land Act, it is left to the option of the parties to have pattas and muchilikas for periods of one or more
revenue years. In this case they agreed to have one for three years. ''The Estates Land Act'' is a special enactment and nowhere it is laid down
there in that pattas should be stamped and registered under the Registration Act.
Section 52(1) only applies to cases of raiyats with occupancy rights in an estate. The complainant appears to be a minor inamdar in a
Government village and even here his learned advocate is not able to tell me that he is anything else. The terms of the kadapa itself in fact clearly
show that the raiyats are not occupancy holders. Therefore it is not a question of exchange of pattas and muchilikas, and if the distraint cannot be
brought u/s 134 it is an illegal deitraint. Once the written lease unavailable as being unregistered, then there is no written agreement between the
parties and hence the complainant cannot take advantage of Section 134 to make a distraint u/s 212, Clause 1 (b) and hence the conviction based
on an illegal distraint must be set aside and the petition allowed. The fine if paid will be refunded. The same order is made in Criminal Revision
Case No. 20 of 1932.