Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Jurugumilli Brahmayya (Minor) By ... vs Chellaghali Achiraju on 22 March, 1922

The State Of Madras And Another vs V. Srinivasa Ayyangar on 21 October, 1955

the State. The question is, in our opinion, concluded by section 2(8) -of Act XXVI of 1948 which defines a landholder as including a darmila inamdar, and that is a statutory recognition of the doctrine laid down in Brahmayya v. Achiraju(1) and Narayanaraju v. Suryanarayudu(2) that darmila inamdars are owners ,of parts of an estate. The result then is that when the darmila inam does not relate to the entire village but only to a fraction of it, it must be held to retain its character as part of the estate in the hands of the inamdar, and when the estate is notified under section 1 (4) of the Act, the inam will vest in the State under -section 3(b).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Badam Suryanarayana And Ors. vs Yalla Bullayya Alias Venkatachelam ... on 3 November, 1926

9. It is argued by the learned vakil for the appellants that the decisions in Gadadhara Das Bavaji v. Suryanarayana Patnaik and Brahmayya v. Achiraju proceeded on the footing that the land was ryoti land at the time of the grant by the Zamindar and therefore the principle of those decisions cannot be applied to all dharmilla inams, unless the subject of the inams is held to be ryoti land. If a dispute arises as to whether a particular land is ryoti land or the private land of the landholder the enquiry has to be made on the footing that the land shall be presumed not to be private land until the contrary is shown--vide Section 185 of the Act. Even according to Section 23 of the Act, when it becomes necessary to determine whether any land is old waste or ryoti land other than old waste, it shall be presumed to be ryoti land other than old waste until the contrary is proved. No doubt these sections lay down rules of evidence and do not indicate any rule of substantive law. It is contended on the appellants' side that even these rules of evidence cannot be applied when the question to be determined is the character of the land at the time of the grant and not at the time of the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

R. Bhunjanga Rao vs Periyathambi Goundan And Ors. on 22 July, 1925

677 and by Schawabe, C.J., and Devadoss, J., in Brahmayya v. Achiraju A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 373 can only apply to minor subsequent inams, that is, the so called subsequent inams which are not whole villages. Where the subsequent inam is a who'e village held on a permanent under-tenure, the case must really fall under Section 3(2)(e) and there is no scope for a difference of opinion. In the present case though the suit village was carved out of another larger village, ever since 1801 it was regarded as a distinct and separate village. That being so, Clause(e) of Section 2(3) will apply. The first contention of the appellant must, therefore, be disallowed and the conclusion of the Courts below that the higher rent sought to be charged on the plaintiffs and other tenants under Ex. G is not binding on the ryots must stand.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Raja Sri Chintalapati Butchi ... vs Gollavilli Appadu Alias Chinnodu And ... on 26 March, 1925

7. Mr. Varadachari, the learned Vakil for the plaintiff, contends that according to the true construction of Ex. E(1) it constitutes a grant only of the kudivaram interest. But for the purpose of the present appeal he does not propose to take his stand upon this. I have, therefore, to deal with the case on the footing that Rayappa Razu and Sundaranarasayya are minor inamdars. That they will in that event be land-holders must now be taken as settled. Jurugumilli Brahmayya v. Chellaghali Acthiraju 70 Ind. Cas. 615 : 45 M. 716 : (1922) M.W.N. 280 : 31 M.L.T. 91 : 43 M.L.J. 229 Mad. 373. That case is an authority for the proposition that although the grant of a post-settlement inam comprises both the varams, the grantee is a land-holder and the ryot can claim occupancy rights. Now, the short question is, did the grant in favour of Purushottam comprise both the varams, in other words, was there a grant in inam to him, or as the plaintiff contends, was he merely inducted to the land as a ryot? To put it in another way, what was the subject of the grant in favour of Purushottam?
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kuppu Reddi Nookayya (Dead) And Ors. vs Mandaluka Bheemanna And Anr. on 15 December, 1922

9. The first question that arises for decision is whether the Estates Land Act applies to the inam. If the inam is a part of the Pittapur estate, the Act applies to the inam, Brahmayya v. Achiraju 70 Ind. Cas. 615 : 45 M. 716 : (1922) M.W.N. 280 : 31 M.L.T. 91 : 43 M.L.J. 229 (1922) A.I.R. (M.) 373, apart from the question whether the first defendant is a raiyat. The Courts below are of the opinion that the land was part of the Pittapur estate and on the question whether the first defendant is a raiyat they differed.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

P. Subramanya Somayajulu And Anr. vs Y. Seethayya And Four Ors. on 5 April, 1922

2. It has been established that, where a grant in inam is a grant of both the landlord's and the tenant's rights in the land or as they are called the melwaram and the kudivaram, the land is not an estate; but if the grant is of the landlord's rights or the melwaram alone, it is an "estate" so that the question to be decided is whether the grant is of the land itself or only of the right to the revenue from the land. There is no question in this case of the village being part of an estate and the question which was recently decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Brahmayya v. Achiraju(l) (1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 716. where it was held that a minor inamdar who was granted both varams in respect of a small part of an estate was a landholder, does not arise, because the village in question has not been shown to be part of an estate. I am conscious of the absurdity if that case was rightly decided and the view which we are about to express in this case is right, for the result is that a minor inamdar of a few acres would be a "landholder" while a major inamdar of a whole village would not. But such apparent inconsistencies are not surprising in view of the draftsmanship of the Statute.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pentakota Naryudu And Ors. vs Yellapu Venkata Ramanamurthi And Ors. on 8 July, 1949

13. In view of my conclusion that the lands are private lands, it is unnecessary for me to consider at length two other questions which were argued at the bar. Mr. Ramanarasu for the petitioners contended that the most that could be claimed for the plaintiffs in this case is that the grant in favour of Venugopal Bhupathi under EX. P-5 of 1892 was of both the warams. In that event, the grantee and his successor-in-title would be "landholders" within the meaning of Section 3 (5), Madras Estates Land Act and the present suit for rent would lie in the Revenue Court. He relied on the decisions in Brahmayya v. Achiraju, 45 Mad. 716: (A. I. R. (9) 1922 Mad. 373 P. B.)
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pentakota Naryudu And Ors. vs Yellapu Venkata Ramanamurthi And Ors. on 8 July, 1949

13. In view of my conclusion that the lands are private lands, it is unnecessary for me to ccnsider at length two other questions which were argued at the bar. Mr. Ramanarasu, for the petitioners, contended that the most that could be claimed for the plaintiiffs in this case is that the grant in favour of Venugopal Bhupathi under Exhibit P-5 of 1892 was of both the warams. In that event, the grantee and his successor-in-title would be "landholders " within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act and the present suit for rent would lie in the Revenue Court. He relied on the decisions in Brahmayya v. Achiraju (1922) 43 M.L.J. 229 : I.L.R. 45 Mad. 716 (F.B.)
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

V. Srinivasa Ayyangar vs The State Of Madras And Anr. on 4 April, 1952

The conflict between the various views of the learned Judges of this court in regard to-the rigtits of the minor inamdars and the tenants holding under them has finally been. settled by the Judicial Committee in -- 'Nara-yanaraju v. Suryanarayudu', ILR 1940 Mad 1. There a zamindar made a post-settlement grant of a portion of a moKnasa village as manyam. Their Lordships held that the grantee was a landholder witnin the meaning of. Sections 3 (5) of, the Madras Estates Land Act. They noticed the conflicting views expressed, by different Judges and also the difficulty in construing the section but in the end they accepted the-majority view expressed in -- 'Brahmayya v. Achiraju', 45 Mad 716.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sri Dantuluri Butchi Ramayya vs Gundu Ramanna And Ors. on 28 February, 1952

6. As these lands were given to the plaintiff's predecessor free of rent, it may be said that the lands formed part of a post settlement or Dharmila Inam. Now it is well established that a post settlement grantee, even of both the warams, would be a landholder within the meaning of that term as used in the Madras Estates Land Act and the persons in occupation of the holdings would be ryots (see the Full Bench ruling of this Court in -- 'J. Brahmayya v. C Achiraju', AIR 1922 Mad 373 (D) approved by the Privy Council in -- 'Narayanaraju v Suryanarayudu', AIR 1939 PC 244 (E).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next