Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)
Duddampudi Venkatrayudu (Dead) And ... vs Bikkina Subbarayudu And Ors. on 22 March, 1918 cites

Upadrasta Venkata Sastrulu vs Devi Sitaramudu And Ors. on 18 March, 1914

14. To my mind the true tell is cultivation. This was the view taken by Sadasiva Aiyar, J., in an elaborate judgment in Upadrasia Venkata v. Devi Sitaramudu 24 Ind. Cas. 224 : 38 M. 891 : 26 M.L.J. 585, a case decided by him and Seshagiri Aiyar, J. He was dealing with waste lands in an Inam and said as follows: "The Inamdar, so far as the waste lands are concerned, cannot be considered to have the Kudivaram right in them, though he could create Kudivaram interest in a waste land by letting it to a cultivator and could have (before the Estates Land Act) converted it into a private land by cultivating it through his home-farm servants and thus got the Kudivaram right vested in himself. Till. he does either of these things, the lands would lie waste, owned by the Inamdar...but he could not be said to have the Kudivaram right in it, Kudivaram implying direct contact by cultivation with the soil", and on page 897 Page of 38 M.--Ed. the learned Judge says: "When the Inamdar afterwards granted the lands for cultivation without giving the -cultivators permanent occupancy rights and when ho changed the cultivators from time to time, it cannot be said that thereby the Inamdar himself got any permanent occupancy or Kudivaram right in the land,' as there is no evidence to prove that be let them expressly as his private or as. home-farm lands. The' occupancy right, that is the right to occupy and cultivate, was enjoyed by cultivating tenants from time to time though they did not get a permanent occupancy right thereby."
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next