Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. I find that the suit of 1906 seems to have been brought not against Pallagani Venkayya but against Pallagani Lakshmigadu, Pallagani Ramudu and Pallagani Sithayya (see Exhibit AI, sale certificate). If they were the undivided sons or male descendants of P. Venkayya, the question arises--whether the alleged relinquishment of 1807 if made by P. Venkayya would bind them, if the kudivaram right was ancestral property. (This question was not argued before us).

8. Again, another legal question (which was argued) has to be considered, namely, whether the relinquishment was not required to be in writing to have legal validity (see Section 12 of the old Rent Recovery Act, VIII of 1865) and if it was orally made, whether the circumstances mentioned in Narasimma v. Lakshmana (1890) I.L.R. 13 Mad. 124, as validating an oral surrender existed in the case. It is a matter for argument whether Narasimma v. Lakshmana (1890) I.L.R. 13 Mad. 124, does not, if I may say so with respect, mix up the rights flowing to the landlord from abandonment of the holding by the tenant with the rights flowing from the surrender or relinquishment of the holding by the tenant to the landlord. I think that "abandonment" denotes an unilateral act which, does not necessarily imply that the act has been or has to be brought to the notice of any other person, whereas an act of "relinquishment" or "surrender" implies that the act is brought to the notice of the landlord; see Venkatesh Narayan Pai v. Krishnaji Arjun (1884) I.L.R. 8 Bom. 160 and Balaji Sitaram Naik Salgavker v. Bhikaji Soyare Prabhu Kanolar (1884) I.L.R. 8 Bom. 164, Dinabhandu v. Lokanadhasami (1883) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 322 (F.B.), and Mazhar Rai v. Ramgat Singh (1896) I.L.R. 18 All. 290.