S. N. SUNDALAIMUTHU CHETTIAR versus PALANIYANDAVAN

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 12-08-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

450 
S. N. SUNDALAIMUfHU CHETTIAR 
A 
v. 
PALANIY ANDA VAN 
August 12, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAo, J. R. MUDllOLKAR AND R. S. BACllAWAT, JJ.] 
B 
MWas Cultiva1i11g Tenants Protl'ction Act, of 1955 s. 2(a) and 
(ee)-"carry on personal cultivation", scope of--Son-in-fm,•, if men1ber 
r 
of family. 
The cultivating tonant of land belonging to the appellant died leaving 
his Mdow and daughter .. his heirs. 
The roopoodent, 
who was the 
daughter's hu,band and the hold..- of a power of attorney from the heirs, 
filod an application before the Sub-{;ollector, under s. 3(3)(al of the 
Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, for depositing arreara 
of rent on behalf of the heirs. 
The appellant objected on the ground that 
neither the wife nor the daughter was a cultivating tenant under the Aet, 
as they were not personally cultivating the land; but the Sub-Collector 
overruled the objection and directed the rc>ponJent to deposit the arrears. 
The appellant's revision petition to the High Court was dismissc'd. 
In the appeal to this Court, on the question as to whether the respondent 
was rightly allowed to deposit the arrears. 
HELD : Th<l orders of the Courts below should be set aside and the 
matter remitted to the Sub.COiiector for deciding as to whether the res-
pondent was putting in physical labour in the cultivation of the bnd. (453 
E) 
c 
D 
A oon-in-law can be regarded as a member of the family, and ther<>-
E 
fore, though the heirs of the cultivating tenant were not themselves exert-
ing their physical labour, if the respondent was doing so, the heirs could 
be ropnled as cultivating tenants under s. 2(a) and (ec) of the Act. 
But as there Wa.'i no finding as to the nature of work which the respondent 
..,.. doing, the matter should be 
remilted to the 
Suh-Collector for 
a 
decision. [452 G-H; 453 A-B, DJ 
Clv1L ArHLLATP. JtJRJSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 480 of F 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 
September 4, 1964 of the Madras High Court Civil Revision Peti-
tion No. 125 l of 1963. 
A. V. Viswanatlta Sastri and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
G 
S. C. Aganvala, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg and M. K. Rama--
murlhy, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Coun wa, delivered by 
Mudkelkar, J. This is an appeal against an order passed tJy 
the High Court of Madras dismissing a petition for revision under 
s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the revision application 
the appellant had challenged the order of 
the 
Sub-Collector, 
H 
l 
• 
.. 
I • 
I 
, 
' ,. 
SUDALAI v. PALANI (Mudholkar, J.) 
45f 
A Cheranmahadevi, by virtue of which the respondents were ~r­
mitted to deposit the arrears of rent due in respect of a. holding 
of which one Kanda Devan was a tenant. The aforesaid order 
was made under s. 3 ( 3 )(a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenant~ 
Protection Act, 1955. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
It is common ground that this Act which was originally to 
remain in force for a period of three years is still in fo:ce ~y 
virtue of the provisions of amending acts passed cxtendmg its 
duration from time to time. The expression "cultivating tenant" 
is defined thus in s. 2(a) of the Act: 
" 'cultivating tenant' in relation to any land means a 
person who carries on personal cultivation on such land 
and, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and 
includes-
(i) any such person who 
continues in possession of 
the land after the determination of the tenancy 
agreement and 
(ii) the heirs of such person, but does not include a 
mere intermediary or his heirs;" 
By the Amending Act, Madras Act 14 of 1956, cl. (ee) was 
added to s. 2 which purports to define the meaning of the expres-
sion "carry on personal cultivation". Clause ( ee) reads thus : 
"a person is said to carry on personal cultivation on 
a land when he contributes his own physical labour or 
that of the members of his family in the cultivation of 
that land;" 
F 
The provisions set out above are relevant for consideration in this 
appeal. ' What happened was that Kanda Devan, who was the 
cultivating tenant, died some time before the proceedings before 
the Sub-Collector commenced. 
He left behind as his heirs his 
widow Palaniachi Ammal and his daughter Ramalakshmi Ammal. 
The respondent before us is the daughter's husband and holds a 
G power of attorney both from her and Palaniachi Ammal. There 
was default in payment of rent and so the respondent by virtue 
of the power of the attorney in his favour made an application in 
th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.