Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Sri Gadadhara Das Bavaji, Mahant Of ... vs Suryanarayana Patnaik And Two Ors. on 10 February, 1921
cites
Section 3 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
Idubilly Siyyadi Garu And Ors. vs Sree Raja Visweswara Nissanka Bahadur ... on 21 April, 1915
We were referred to two cases, Gajapati Maharaju Garu v. Sondi Prahalada Binoyi Ratno (1914) M.W.N., 179, and Idubilli Siyyaddi v. Sri Rajah Viswaswara Nissanka (1915) 18 M.L.T., 142, in which a service inamdar is said to have been treated as the tenant of the zamindari, but in neither of these cases did the question before us arise for consideration. The suits turned on the nature of the zamindar's power of resumption.
Muthu Reddi And Ors. vs Muthu Venkatapathi Eddi And Anr. on 18 July, 1916
21. I think it would be unreasonable to hold that the mere fact that an occupancy ryot gets an interest in the melvaram would give his sub-tenants (who till then had no rights of occupancy and who could be evicted) rights of permanent occupancy and put the grantee of the melvaram in a decidedly worse position. In all such cases, when there is no merger under any of the provisions of the Act, the right of the inamdar as an occupancy ryot remains in him, and the effect of his acquiring an interest in the melvaram is not to extinguish his rights as an occupancy ryot and convert him into a landholder so as to bring his subtenant within the provisions of Section 6, Clause (1). Muthu Reddi v. Muthu Venkatapathi Reddi (19l6) 31 M.L.J., 354 and The Zamindar of Sanivanippet v. The Zamindar of South Vellur (1916) I.L.R, 39 Mad., 944 are authorities for the view that the Explanation to Section 6 prevents any results that would arise from a merger of the melvaram and kudivaram. rights in the same person.
Sri Meerja Raja Sri Poosapati Vijiarama ... vs The Collector Of Vizagapatam And ... on 20 July, 1914
In Maharajah of Vizianagaram v. The Collector of Vizagapatam (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad 1128(F.B.) it was held that grantees holding under perpetual grants, subject to, the payment to the zamindar of a small rent under the names of jodi, kattubadi or poruppu, are not owners or proprietors of the land granted to them. Though the decision was in connexion with the provisions of the Madras Land Revenue Assessment Act (I of 1976) the reasoning proceeds on general grounds and the ratio decidendi is equally applicable to cases under the Estates Land Act.
Duddampudi Venkatrayudu (Dead) And ... vs Bikkina Subbarayudu And Ors. on 22 March, 1918
Among later cases in which the same view is taken I may quote Chipurapalli Appayya v. Ramachandra Raju (1914) 27 M.L.J., 490, Venkanna v. Sri Raja Rama Row (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 1155, Duddampudi Venkatrayudu v. Bikhina Subbarayudu (1918) M.W.N., 643 and a recent unreported case, Tripurana Venkata Soorya Prasada Row v. Tripurana Jhaga Row S.A. 1169 of 1807 (unreported).
Section 8 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
S. Appalanarasimhulu And Anr. vs M. Sanyasi And Three Ors. on 2 October, 1912
every person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate by virtue of any transfer from the owner,
and I think the grant in inam must be regarded as such a transfer. A certain difficulty may arise, where, as in the present case, the grant was of both varams: this I shall consider later. But where the grant is only of the melvaram, I do not see how a Court can refuse to treat it as a transfer by the owner of the right to collect the rent of the portion of the estate to which it relates: and whatever may have been the intention of the Legislature we have to deal with the Act as it left their hands. This is the view taken in a series of cases before this Court, starting with Appalanarasimhulu v. Sanyasi (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 33. The difficulty referred to by the learned Chief Justice as regards the definition of rent is dealt with by Sundara Ayyar, J., in that case: and I entirely agree with his view. The rent which the inamdar is entitled to collect by virtue of his inam grant is identical with the rent which was lawfully payable to the zamindar before the grant, and with all respect to the view of my Lord the Chief Justice, I think the significance sought to be placed on the words 'in his estate' in the definition of 'rent' is misplaced.