Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.01 seconds)
Ryali Macharayya vs Palakollu Chintanna And Ors. on 16 September, 1954 cites

Kesaram Narasimhulu And Kesaram ... vs Vuddanda Row Narasimhulu Patnailu on 11 October, 1906

In -- 'Kestiram Narasimhulu v. Narasimhulu Patnaidu', 30 Mad 126 (A) (FB), a Bench of three Judges held that the jurisdiction of a civil court is excluded by S. 21, Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act in cases in which the plaintiff sues for recovery of the land as emoluments of his office, and the defendant resists the claim on the ground that the land is not the emolument of the office. At page 129, Sir Arnold White C. J. defines the scope of S. 21 as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Yandluri Yellamanda vs Kunchala Chitambaram (Died) And Ors. on 24 November, 1925

Devadoss and Wallace JJ held in -- Yellamanda v. Chitambaram', AIr 1926 Mad 505 (D) that suit for possession of service inam lands, not based on the fact that the plaintiff is the holder of an office and that the land attached as emoluments to that office, buton the allegation that the defendants were tenants holding over after the expiry of a lease, is cognisable by civil court. At page 506 Devadoss J observes:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1