AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
There is no enactment which in terms requires a "" landholder"" to be registered before he can exercise the powers conferred by Act VIII of
1865.
Section I of the Act enumerates two classes of persons who, for the purposes of the Act, are included in the term ''''land-holders."" The
enumeration of the persons in Clause 2 concludes with the words "" and all other registered holders of land in proprietary right."" It has been argued
that these words have the effect of limiting the application of the word of Clause 1 to cases where the persons therein enumerated have been
registered. We do not think the section can be so construed, Assuming on the true construction of the section that the words of limitation qualify
the words of Clause 2, they cannot be taken to qualify the class of persons enumerated in Clause 1. The word ""Jaghirdars"" as used in Sections 1
and 3 of the Act is not confined to registered Jaghirdars,
We think the case Subbu v. Vasanthappan ILR 8 M. 351 was rightly decided, and that in principle no distinction can be drawn between
Zamindars and the other landholders enumerated in Clause 1 of Section 1, The principle of this decision, viz., that no registration by the Collector
does not affect title was acted on by the Privy Council in the cases of Vizainagaram Maharaja v. Suryanarayana ILR 9 M 307 confirming a
decision of this Court as to the validity of an alienation although unregistered which proceeded upon the same grounds as Subbu v. Vasantapphu
ILR 5 M. 145.
With regard to the cases in which a different view has been taken, the courts appear either to have considered Valarama v. Virappa ILR 8 M.
351 a binding authority, notwithstanding the decision in Subbu v. Vasantappan ILR 8 M. 351 or to have distinguished the case from Subba v.
Vasantappan ILR 8 M. 351 on the facts.
Our answer therefore to the first question referred to us is in the affirmative:
As regards the second question we are clearly of opinion that the word ""proceedings"" in Section 80 of the Act of 1865 does not include tender of
pattah. The ""proceedings"" in the section are by the express terms of the section limited to summary proceedings for arrears of rent.