N.S. Narayanasami Aiyer And Anr. vs Vathiar Rama Aiyer And Ors. on 10 March, 1910
A perusal of Exhibit JJ seems to show that it was understood in that case that a kasavargam tenant should render services to his landlord, but that mere cessation of such services would not suffice to determine the tenancy (see the case of N. S. Narayanasamy Aiyar v. Vathiyar Rama Aiyar reported in Madras Weekly Notes page 473). The case of the Tanjore Mission was moreover a peculiar one. The terms on which the Mission allows tenants to occupy its lands may be gathered from an extract from the will of Rev. J. C. Kohlhoff which is set out in para 9 of Exhibit LL, the judgment of this court in appeal from the judgment marked as Exhibit IX. These are quite different from the terms of the ordinary kasavargam tenancy, but nevertheless the Mission succeeded in evicting from their lands persons whose predecessors in title were proved by the paimash accounts to have been kasavargamdars but who had ceased for a Jong time to pay rent or render services to the Mission. Thejudgments in these cases (Exhibits JJ and I.L) cannot, therefore, be regarded as evidence that the performance of services for their landlord is not an essential condition of a kasavargan tenancy. The learned vakil for the defendants also relied on the ruling referred to in 14 Madras Law Journal, Short Notes, page 18. There is, however, nothing in that report to show what were the facts of that ease or in what district it arose.