Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing G. Ponniah Thevar vs Nellayam Perumal Pillai And Others on 15 December, 1976

S.V. Venkatarama Reddiar vs Abdul Ghani Rowther And Ors. on 22 January, 1980

21. Likewise in Ponniah v. Perumal , also, it has been specifically pointed out that the rights of parties were not being determined with reference to any general or personal law, but solely with reference to the terms contained in the C. T. P. Act. In such circumstances, the judgments also do not afford scope for Mr. Narayanaswami to contend that the ratio laid down in those cases must unreservedly be extended to non-agricultural leases created by mortgagees with possession.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Sowrirajan vs Sundaram And Others on 17 December, 1997

37. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Ponniah Thevar v. Nellayam Perumal Pillai and others, 91 L.W.292 it was submitted that the statutory right conferred on a cultivating tenant and which springs from the special enactment has to be respected irrespective of any right which would, when placed in juxtaposition with the right under special enactment, be opposed and violative to it. In the case before the Bench, the lease was granted during the period the mortgage suit was pending. But, the Bench held that the principle behind the doctrine of lis pendens cannot do away the vitals of the special benefits conferred on a cultivating tenant by statute which has sprung from agrarian legislation and which has a specific purpose to serve in our and other States.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Executive Officer vs Sadayappa Gounder(Died) on 18 February, 2022

payment of the fixed rent and on certain other contingencies. The ryotwari settlement made on the abolition of estates completely changes the position of a ryot in relation to his holding. Under Section 11 of the Act, every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of his ryotiland. As a result of the Abolition Act, a cultivator having only occupancy right in law is raised to the stature of proprietor of the land, subject to the prerogative of the State to impose assessment on the land varying from time to time. Under the ryotwari system, the Government does not purport to grant any title deed to the proprietor or holder of the land. But what is granted is only a patta which, as has been repeatedly pointed out in decisions, is not a title deed not only https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/28 S.A.Nos.769/1990 and 1147/1992 a bill or documentary evidence of the fiscal arrangement between the ryotwari proprietor and the Government. The pattadar, that is, the person registered as the owner of a ryotwari holding, is as regards the Government, the responsible proprietor of the ryotwari land registered in his name in the Land Register of the District. As pointed out in Krishnaswami Thevar v. Perumal re Konare, the patta granted under S.11 to 14 also is nothing more than a bill and does not itself confer any title. Of course, with the abolition of the estate, ryoti lands undergo a statutory change but that is as regards their tenure. They become ryotwari entitling the holder to a ryotwari patta. To use the convenient expression, they become ryot's freehold property....”
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

The Executive Officer vs Sadayappa Gounder(Died) on 18 February, 2022

payment of the fixed rent and on certain other contingencies. The ryotwari settlement made on the abolition of estates completely changes the position of a ryot in relation to his holding. Under Section 11 of the Act, every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of his ryotiland. As a result of the Abolition Act, a cultivator having only occupancy right in law is raised to the stature of proprietor of the land, subject to the prerogative of the State to impose assessment on the land varying from time to time. Under the ryotwari system, the Government does not purport to grant any title deed to the proprietor or holder of the land. But what is granted is only a patta which, as has been repeatedly pointed out in decisions, is not a title deed not only https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/28 S.A.Nos.769/1990 and 1147/1992 a bill or documentary evidence of the fiscal arrangement between the ryotwari proprietor and the Government. The pattadar, that is, the person registered as the owner of a ryotwari holding, is as regards the Government, the responsible proprietor of the ryotwari land registered in his name in the Land Register of the District. As pointed out in Krishnaswami Thevar v. Perumal re Konare, the patta granted under S.11 to 14 also is nothing more than a bill and does not itself confer any title. Of course, with the abolition of the estate, ryoti lands undergo a statutory change but that is as regards their tenure. They become ryotwari entitling the holder to a ryotwari patta. To use the convenient expression, they become ryot's freehold property....”
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

K. Chinnammal (Died) Thr. Lrs. vs L.R. Eknath on 11 May, 2023

25. Similarly, apropos the decision in G Ponniah Thevar v Nellayam Perumal Pillai, (1977) 1 SCC 500, we note that the Court had only held that cultivating tenant inducted by the person holding life estate in that land was also entitled for protection as per the provisions of the Act, even against the heirs of the inductor and they can only be evicted by following 23 the procedure laid down in the Act for reasons therein mentioned. In fact, in Paragraph No. 4, it has been noted that Section 3(2) of the Act deals with exceptional circumstances, such as default in payment of rent in which the statutory protection from eviction of the tenant has been lifted. In the case at hand, in fact, the procedure contemplated under the Act has been followed. Thus, in our view, the aforesaid decision equally is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Ece Industries Ltd. vs Macneill And Magor Ltd. on 14 March, 1996

(27) The learned Senior Counsel brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court in G.Ponniah Thevar v. Nalleyam Perumal Pillai and Ors., wherein the Supreme Court has held: "cultivating tenant inducted into the possession by a person holding life estate in the land also entitled to protection of the notwithstanding Cultivating Protection Act, 1955." This case does not apply to the facts of the instant case.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

T.K. Subramania Iyer (Died) And Others vs C. Natarajan And Others on 24 January, 1996

"Having dealt with all the contentions of the appellant's counsel, we will now proceed to sum up our findings. Firstly, we hold that the ratio in Chandrasekhara v. Kunju Van-niar and Ponniah v. Perumal cannot be extended to tenants inducted on non-agricultural urban property by transitory title-holders, like mortgagees with possession, since the abovesaid two cases have been decided purely with reference to the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Secondly, under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, if a tenancy is created by a mortgagee with possession, the ties of landlord and tenant are snapped eo instanti the mortgage is redeemed and, unless there is a fresh forging of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the mortgagor and the erstwhile tenant by (i) the voluntary act of the parties, or (ii) a deemed forging of the relationship by express provision in the Act itself, as under Section 2(aa) of the C.T.P. Act. the erstwhile tenant cannot claim protection under the Act so as to perpetuate his occupation of the building as a tenant. The mere protection given in the Act to tenants from unreasonable eviction will not be of any use, because the protection afforded is intended for tenants against their lands, and not for erstwhile tenants as against the mortgagors who are not their landlords. Thirdly, lease of land for agricultural purposes stands on a distinct footing and hence lease of urban property cannot be placed on the same footing. The resultant position is that the rule of exception contained in Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be readily and automatically invoked by a tenant let into possession of urban property by a mortgagee with possession.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. And Anr vs K.C. Bhaskaran Nair on 9 March, 1989

Reliance was also placed on the observations of this Court in G. Ponniah Thevar v. Nalleyam Perumal Pillai & Ors., [1977] 1 SCC 500. That decision, in our opinion, has no application. The person inducting the tenant-appellant was a co-widow who had a life interest in the lands. It was observed that the terms of the statutory protection applied clearly to all tenancies governed by the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act irrespective of the nature of fights of the person who leased the land so long as the lessor was entitled to create a tenancy. In our opinion, the said observations would not be applic-
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 22 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 3 Next