AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In Second Appeals 1035 and 1037 it is urged that there is no clear and distinct finding by the District Judge as to whether the landlord had
shown that there was an implied contract between the parties, that notwithstanding the fact that a well had been dug by the tenant garden rates
should be paid on the land irrigated by it. As the judgment is not perfectly clear as to this and as the point is an important one, we direct the District
Judge to return a finding on the following issue :--"" Was there an implied contract on the part of the defendants to pay jarib rates on lands
cultivated by aid of wells dug by themselves.""?
The question as to whether there is or is not an implied contract is one that must be decided on the facts of each case. The mere fact that garden
rates had been paid for a few years would not necessarily lead to the inference that there was any such contract. This, it is clear, is the view taken
by the judges in Venkatagiri Raja v. Pitchana ILR 9 M. 27. On the other hand, payment of garden rates for a lengthened period coupled with other
circumstances may justify the finding that there was an implied contract. The findings should be arrived at on the evidence on record and should be
submitted within 6 weeks from this date. Objections, if any, are to be filed within 7 days.
In second appeals 1035 and 1037 it is urged on behalf of the respondents that the notices served on them were bad inasmuch as they do not
show the dates on which the arrears are alleged to have become due. It is the case that such dates are not clearly set out according to the several
kists, but as the Fasli with respect to which the rent was due is correctly given, we cannot hold that the omission to enter the dates on which the
kists fell due is a material irregularity. It should be noted that in second appeal 1037 of 1902 the distraint for Fasli 1309 is illegal.