Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur ... vs Sobhanadri Appa Row Bahadur Garu Being ... on 18 September, 1902

Kamaravutu Mrutyunjayadu vs Raja Saheb Maharban Dostan Sri Raja Ravu ... on 14 December, 1915

8. In the present case the grant is made to one "nakesh" Mritunjayadu as 'Service' Inam but the nature of the service is not specifically stated in the grant, but it is admitted that the service was that of nakesh or decorator, and that the holder also performed Mochi Service. The word nakesh prefixed to the grantee's name appears to me to be a mere title. The rent payable on the land has always been the same, and the grant recites that enjoyment shall be from son to grandson and so on in succession, and as a matter of fact, the land has descended to the holder's son and grandson without objection till now, nor has any attempt been made before this to resume the grant or enhance the rent. We also have the recital in the grant "as you who are deserving of the patronage of the diwanum have been rendering service properly you were favoured and lands have been granted," which certainly goes to show that the grant was a reward for past services, and that this was so is further proved by the fact that the grantee's services were recompensed by the same salary both before and after the grant, and this is a very strong piece of evidence that the grant was not made in lieu of wages. The circumstances of this case appear to me to be stronger than those in Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur (1915) I.L.R. 29 M. 512 in support of the view that the grant is not one in lieu of wages. The fact that the nature of the service is in this case personal does not affect the question, which depends solely on the nature of the grant, and for the same reason it is immaterial whether the service is of a feudal nature or otherwise.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Sri Sri Vikramadeo Maharajlungaru ... vs Kishetravara Todramal Narendra Tatraj ... on 18 February, 1915

In these circumstances we do not consider at length how far the tenure of Bissemkatak possesses the characteristics of a grant subject to a burden of service enumerated by this Court in the portion of its judgment in Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadnr v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur 29 M. 52 (P.C.); 16 M.L.J. 1 : 1 M.L.T. 3 : 3 C.L.J. 1 : 3 A.L.J. 55 : 8 Bom. L.R. 1 : 10 C.W.N. 161 : 33 I.A. 46, which the Privy Council adopted. For only the presence of the second, fixity of tenure, could be discussed. As to it, a finding in the negative would follow from our conclusion that the rent was enhanced on three occasions.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Kamaravutu Mrutyunjayadu vs Rajah Of Pittapuram on 14 December, 1915

8. In the present case the grant is made to one "nakesh" Mrutyunjayadu as "service" inam but the nature of the service is not specifically stated in the grant, but it is admitted that the service was that of nakesh or decorator, and that the holder also performed mochi service. The word nakesh prefixed to the grantee's name appears to me to be a mere title. The rent payable on the land has always been the same, and the grant recites that enjoyment shall be from son to grandson and so on in succession, and as a matter of fact, the land has descended to the holder's son and grandson without objection till now, nor has any attempt been made before this to resume the grant or enhance the rent. We also have the recital in the grant: "as you who are deserving of the patronage of the divanum have been rendering service properly you were favoured and lands have been granted," which certainly goes to show that the grant was a reward for past services, and that this was so is further proved by the fact that the grantee's services were recompensed by the same salary both before and after the grant, and this is a very strong piece of evidence that the grant was not made in lieu of wages. The circumstances of this case appear to me to be stronger than those in Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Sobhanadri Appa Row 29 M. 52 : 16 M.L.J. 1 : 1 M.L.T. 3 : 3 C.L.J. 1 : 3 A.L.J. 55 : 8 Bom. L.R. 1 : 10 C.W.N. 161 : 33 I.A. 46 in support of the view that the grant is not one in lieu of wages. The fact that the nature of the service is in this case personal does not affect the question, which depends solely on the nature of the grant, and for the same reason it is immaterial whether the service is of a feudal nature or otherwise.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

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

It is true that the statement that they were resumable was not acted upon by the Courts Sri Rajah Sobhanadri Appa Rao v. Sri Rajah Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao Bahadur 26 M. 403 at pp. 404, 409 affiimed by Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur 29 M. 52 : 8 Bom. L.R. 1 : 10 C.W.N. 116 : 3 A.L.J. 55 : 3 C.L.J. 1 : 1 M.L.T. 3 : 16 M.L.J. 1 : 33 I.A 46 : 8 Sar.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Chinnan And Ors. vs Kondam Naidu And Anr. on 24 October, 1913

In Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur (1905) I.L.R. 29 Mad. 52, 55 the meaning of the word mohhasa is discussed. The definition given in Wilson's Glossary is quoted to show that it is derived from an Arabic word signifying ' to have as one's own ' and that it means " a village or land assigned to an individual, either rent-free or at a low quit rent, on condition of service."
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Koppi Reddi Nokayya (Dead) And Ors. vs Mandalekka Bheemanna And Anr. on 15 December, 1922

It is true that the statement that they were resumable was not acted upon by the Courts Sri Raja Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sri Raja Venka Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur (1902) I.L.R. 26 M. 403 at 409 affirmed by Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur (1905) I.L.R. 29 M. 52, but whether resumable or irresumable, that they were included in the assets of the zamindari follows from the dictum of Sir Barnes Peacock in Raja Nilmoney Singh v. Government (1866) 6 W.R. 121 approved in Raja Nilmoni Singh v. Bakranath Singh (1881) 9 I.A. 104 at 121.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gopisetti Veeraswami And Ors. vs Sagiraju Seetharama Kantayya on 22 January, 1926

In Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sobhanadri Appa Row Bahadur (1905) I.L.R. 29 M 52 at 57 : 16 M L J 1 (P C) the Judicial Committee observe that the records of the Circuit Committee could not affect the rights as between the mokhasadars and the Zemindar but they, however, agreed with the High Court in thinking that they might be good evidence with reference to the system upon which the Government claimed to deal with the Zemindar's property, and it is that question that has fallen to be decided in the present cases. As there appears to be no doubt that the mokhasas in question owned by the plaintiffs in these suits were not excluded.at the time of the Permanent Settlement from consideration in computing the assets of the zemindari it follows that they are still held on a permanent under-tenure of the Nuzvid zemindari and therefore these suits are by Section 189 of the Madras Act I of 1908 excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. It may follow incidentally that under Section 6 of that Act the persons in occupation of ryoti land have acquired permanent occupancy, but this is not for us to decide in the present appeals. Nor is it necessary in these proceedings to make any pronouncement whether the Zemindar has a subsisting right to resume these mokhasas seeing that the Zemindar is not a party and the point does not directly arise.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sri Mahant Prayag Doss Jeevaru vs Abbupillai And Ors. on 26 February, 1929

As remarked by the Privy Council in the case Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur 29 M. 52 : 3 C.L.J. 1 : 10 C.W.N. 161 : 3 A.L.J. 54 : 8 Bow.L.R. 1 : 16 M.L.J. 1 : 1 M.L.T. 3 : 33 I.A. 16 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 397 (P.C.) "where a grant of land is subject to a burden of service, and is not a mere grant in lieu of wages, the grantor has no right to put an end to the tenure, whether the services are performed or not, as long as the grantees are willing and able to perform the services. "
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next