Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.59 seconds)
A. S. N. Naina Pillai Marakayar vs T. A. R A. R. M. Ramanathan Chettiar And ... on 22 December, 1916 cites

Chidambara Pillai And Ors. vs Tiruvengadathiengar And Ors. on 20 December, 1887

20. In the result it appears to me that the defendants have not shown that they had any higher title than that of cultivating tenants from year to year." The whole of these remarks, it appears to me, apply to the present ease also. The next ease is that reported as Chidambara Piliai v. Thiruvengadathiengar 7 M. L. J. 1. to which Mr. Justice Muthusami Aiyar, (who belonged to the Tanjore District) was a party. The plaintiffs there, were trustees of the Rajagopalaswami temple at Mannargudi in the Tanjore District. The defendants (tenants) paid the Government assessment to Government and the swamibogam or mirasbogam to the temple trustees. On account of the Mohini allowance due by the temple, the revenue due on the village to the Government was shortly before suit assigned to the temple, and this temple, therefore, became (in a sense) also an inamdar. The tenants set up kudikani right, that is, permanent right of occupancy and relied upon a pymash account of 1839 and on the free alienations by the tenants of their holdings, the alienations having begun so long ago as in 1848. The learned Judges held that the entries in the pymash account are not conclusive, that the assertion in the sale-deeds of kudikani rights by the tenants cannot bind the temple, that the karayeedu system, (namely, periodic re-distribution of lands among the ryots) having been obtaining in the village cannot also give a permanent right of occupancy to the tenants in the village that the undertaking given by the trustees to the Collector not to eject the tenants so long as they regularly paid the rent without mentioning that the ryots have any kudikani rights, cannot help the tenants and that the trustees were entitled to eject the tenants. At page 10 it is said: Seeing that the Officers of Government had managed the temple villages for many years prior to 1857, it is not improbable that the consideration shown by them to the purakudies as an incident of good management and the length of time for which the purakudies cultivated, inspired them with a belief that they were not liable to be ejected so long as they were punctual in the payment of rent. This may account for sales and mortgages by the appellants and their predecessors 'accompanied with an assertion of kudikani right' which may loosely be used to indicate a permanent tenure of some kind or other." "The non-specification of lands in the leases, the fact that each of the appellants cultivated separately and that there was an occasional re-distribution of lands held by the Purakudies are referable to the conventional mode of leasing to chief men among the purakudies leaving it to them to select others who are to cultivate with them and to distribute the portions to be cultivated by each as may be arranged between them."
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Chockalingam Pillai And Ors. vs Mayandi Chettiar on 13 August, 1896

their Lordships reversing by their said decision the decision of this Court reported as Chockalingam, Pillai v. Mayandi Chettiar 19 M. 485 et seq., 6 M. L. J. 247 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S) 1043. In that case also, the tenants began to hold under a taram faisal muchilika which was executed in December 1831 and completed in January 1832. They claimed permanent occupancy right on grounds very similar, to those advanced in the present case. The executants called themselves ulavadai mirasidars. They relied also on long enjoyment with a uniform rate of rent.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Rajah Of Venkatagiri vs Mukku Narsaya And Ors. on 26 April, 1910

22. I agree with the lower Court for the reasons already slated that the 1st defendant who evidently belongs to the trading class had no bona fide belief that his vendors had a permanent occupancy right in their holdings. It has been held in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Mukku Narsaya 7 Ind. Cas. 202 : 37 M. 1 : (1910) M. W. N. 369 : 8 M. L. T. 258. that Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act will not apply to the case of a tenant as it cannot be said that he is a person believing in good faith that he is absolutely entitled" to the land. It, therefore, follows that even assuming that the 1st defendant bona fide believed that his vendor had occupancy rights he cannot claim compensation under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the result I would dismiss the appeals with the costs of the respondents (plaintiff).
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next