Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (1.80 seconds)

Sri Ravu Seshayya Garu vs The Rajah Of Pittappur, Sri Raja Ravu ... on 24 March, 1916

Speaking with all respect, it seems to me that the definition of the word "agriculture" in Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan (1901) I.L.R. 24 M. 421 by Sir V. Bhashyam Aiyangar, J. and by Sadasiva Aiyar, J. in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Ayyappareddi (1913) I.L.R. 38 M. 738 : 25 M.L.J. 578 and Seshayya v. Rajah of Pittapur (1916) 31 M.L.J. 214 could not be accepted for all purposes without qualification. If we look into the recognised dictionaries as to the meaning of the word "agriculture", all that we find is that "agriculture" means "field cultivation" and "cultivation" is said to be "tillage or breaking up the soil".
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Devaraja Naicken vs Ammani Ammal on 16 December, 1915

However, so far as the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, it must be remembered that in Devaraja Naicken v. Ammani Animal (1915) 3 L.W. 319, another Bench of this Court, Seshagiri Aiyar and Kumaraswami Sastri, JJ., held that a lease for planting casuarina trees is not a lease for agricultural purposes within the meaning of that Act. That shows that even in regard to the Transfer of Property Act the question is not a very easy one to decide. But what we are concerned here with is, not the Transfer of Property Act, but the Madras Estates Land Act; and, as I think it cannot be denied that in different Acts "agriculture" is used with varying contents and as ordinary educated people use "agriculture" in different senses, the only safe course for us is to try by examining the Madras Estates Land Act itself to ascertain in what sense that word has been used in that Act.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next