explanations in regard to delay in payment, or any other similar matter. This provision was very often grossly abused, and it was eventually abolished, to the dissatisfaction of the landholders, but to the effective relief of the Ryots, by a comprehensive statute in 1859. The decisions of these suits instituted for the recovery of rents were called summary suits.
The procedure was intended to be simple and expeditious. No arrear of more than one twelve-month could be adjudged. And the power to hear such cases has, at various times, been shifted from the Civil Courts to the Collectors and back, so as to cause much perplexity and confusion. Rents that were due beyond the year could only be exacted by a regular civil suit. It is evident from the language of the whole law of 1799, which was intended to be very full and comprehensive, that many abuses had been already brought to light in the management of estates.
But it is by no means to be understood that Zamíndárs and their agents were always harsh and unscrupulous, or that the Ryot was invariably a down-trodden and innocent being. Instances could be quoted by scores in which both parties were in fault. If a Zamíndár was weak and inattentive to business and his agents careless, the Ryots could easily set him at defiance. When a new landlord came in by private purchase or public sale, it might take him six months or a year before he could realise any rent at all. The boundaries of his acquisition were ill-defined. Its area was
