Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Rangayya Appa Rau vs Ratnam And Ors. on 25 August, 1897

Kakarla Abbayya vs Raja Suraneni Venkata Papayya Rao ... on 22 September, 1905

The previous decisions of this Court in Appa Rau v. Ratnam (1889) I.L.R. 13 M. 249 and in Appa Rau v. Narasanna (1891) I.L.R. 15 M. 49 relied on by the Acting District Judge are referred to and explained in the above recent decision. According to it a ryot holding land in a Zemindari on a permanent tenure would, as regards land on which money assessment is paid, be prima facie entitled to the trees therein exclusively. In regard to lands as to which the sharing of crops between the Zemindar and ryot prevails, the Zemindar and the ryot would be jointly interested in the trees standing thereon; but presumptions to the above effect are liable to be rebutted by proof of usage or contract to the contrary. In the present case, the Zemindar pleaded that he had been customarily enjoying the trees in his Zemindari even though standing on lands held by ryot's and evidence as to such enjoyment was offered, but no issue was raised as to the custom of the Zemindari, and the judgments of the lower Courts do not discuss the matter with reference to the custom alleged. Considering the importance of this question as. bearing upon disputes between the Zemindar and his ryots generally, we think there ought to be a direct and distinct finding upon the matter. It should be added that even in the absence of a custom it may be shown with reference to the trees on the plaintiff's holding that he has no right to them under contract, if any, between him and the Zemindar. We must, therefore, call upon the District Judge for a finding upon the question whether the defendant - the Zemindar - is entitled to the trees in dispute either by virtue of a custom of the Zemindari or contract between the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Nandigam Subbarayudu vs Kannam Saheb And Ors. on 22 July, 1919

From Appa Rau v. Ratnam 13 M. 249. which was a decision of 1889 and which related to the Nuzivid Zemindari, it is clear that there was active controversy regarding occupancy rights between the zemindar and the tenant. Other cases may also be quoted to the same effect. Therefore we agree with the Subordinate Judge that much importance should not be attached to the documents which have been brought into existence Since the year 1891.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Manicka Gramany And Anr. vs Ramachandra Aiyar on 20 July, 1898

9. The Madras cases referred to at the hearing are the following: -- 5, M.H.C.R. 293; Ramayyar v. Tirtasami, I.L.R., 7, M. 61; Ragava v. Rajagopal, Ib. 9, M. 39; Ramayyar v. Vedachalla, Ib. 14; M, 441; Gangaragu v. Kondireddiswami, Ib. 17, M. 106; and Rangayya Appa Rau v. Ratnam, Ib. 20, M, 392. It does not appear to me to be necessary to refer to the cases from other Presidencies, to which allusion has been made, as it cannot be held that they have any bearing on the question under consideration.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Srimatu Rajah Y. Mallikarjuna Prasada ... vs V. Subbayya And Anr. Minor Sons Of V. ... on 14 March, 1911

3. The pattas produced by the zamindar for fasli 1300 contain this stipulation and they also state that the right of cultivation should be relinquished if the lands are cultivated without such permission. Following the decision in Appa Rau v. Ratnam (1890) I.L.R., 13 Mad., 249 at p. 253, the Judge has expressed his opinion that this stipulation was penal and unreasonable. It was the plaintiff's case that the question of the settlement of wet rates, if cultivation of wet crops was effected by means of Kistna water, was reserved until such cultivation actually began. The Judge has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove such reservation. In 1897, the ryots executed muchilikas for five years in which they agreed to pay Rs. 3-3-0 per acre for bapat wet lands, i.e., for dry lands cultivated with wet crops not only for the period of five years but also subsequent to it. The wet crops are raised with the aid of water from Kistna channel constructed and maintained solely by Government and it is contended that therefore there is no consideration for this agreement. The Judge has upheld this contention. It is argued by the appellant's pleader that this was an adjustment of disputes between the parties. But it is found as a fact by the Judge that there were no disputes, and Exhibit IV series which, it is alleged, prove that there were disputes only show, as pointed out by the Judge, that these lands were not to be cultivated without the permission of the zamindar. We are therefore unable to agree with the appellant's pleader that this rate was agreed upon to avoid future disputes. It is then contended that She landlord is entitled to revert to the sharing system, and the parties could properly agree to a fixed rate for the future in lieu of a fluctuating varam. There is however nothing to show that the plaintiff is entitled to claim varam in the absence of this stipulation. We have already stated that the reservation at the time of the agreement of fasli 1279 has not been proved, nor is it proved that the rent of Rs. 27-4-0 was to be payable only when the land was cultivated with dry crops. It has been repeatedly held that the proviso to Section 11 of the Bent Recovery Act precludes the zamindar from enhancing the rent except under the conditions laid down by that section.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Subbanna Achariar And Anr. vs Gopalakrishna Achariar And Ors. on 25 February, 1916

The District Judge, however, differed from the District Munsif on the question of res judicata, but upheld the District Munsif's decision on the question of jurisdiction. The 1st to 3rd respondents' Vakil argued before us that the dismissal of the suit by the lower Courts could also be supported on the ground of res judicata decided against the 1st to 3rd respondents in the District Court. If we assume that the Civil Court, and not the Revenue Court, has the jurisdiction over the present suit, a Revenue Court's decision on the question of title cannot be res judicata as under Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, the decision in the first suit by a Court not competent to try the second suit cannot be pleaded as res judicata in the second suit. [See also Rangayya Appa Rou v. Ratnam 20 M. 392.]
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1