Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Sri Mahant Prayag Doss Jeevaru vs Abbupillai And Ors. on 26 February, 1929 cites

The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Rajah Of Venkatagiri on 2 March, 1916

Therefore, the decision in Secretary of State v. Rajah of Venkatagiri 73 Ind. Cas. 741 : 44 M. 864 : 30 M.L.T. 164 : 41 M.L.J. 624 : (1922) M.W.N. 1 : 26 C.W.N. 809 : A.I.R. 1982 P.C. 168 : 41 I.A. 415 (P.C.) is not of any real guidance to me in these cases. Some arguments were advanced whether the inams in the present case are personal inams or public inams In the view I take, it is not necessary to record a definite opinion, on that question. Assuming they are public inams, then, prima facie, the zemindar Could not claim to resume them. If, however, they are assumed to be personal. inams, then, there are findings by the lower Appellate Court that these lands were, granted to the inamdars burdened with particular service and that these services are not required by the zemindar, and that there has been no violation of the terms of the grant by the inamdars nor any default on their part in the rendering of the services.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur ... vs Sobhanadri Appa Row Bahadur Garu Being ... on 18 September, 1902

As remarked by the Privy Council in the case Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur 29 M. 52 : 3 C.L.J. 1 : 10 C.W.N. 161 : 3 A.L.J. 54 : 8 Bow.L.R. 1 : 16 M.L.J. 1 : 1 M.L.T. 3 : 33 I.A. 16 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 397 (P.C.) "where a grant of land is subject to a burden of service, and is not a mere grant in lieu of wages, the grantor has no right to put an end to the tenure, whether the services are performed or not, as long as the grantees are willing and able to perform the services. "
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Rajah Of Vizianagram vs Yadagiri Ramaswami And Ors. on 16 November, 1926

511 and Rajah of Vizianagaram v. Yadagiri Ramaswami 101 Ind. Cas. 49 : 52 M.L.J. 283 : A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 448. But we have got Ex. I, in one of the cases, and other circumstances already mentioned, and referred to by the lower Courts. It was open to the lower Appellate Court on the materials before it, to come to a finding that the lands in these three cases were granted burdened with particular services and that there was no violation by the inamdars of the terms of the grant. That being so, the plaintiff is not entitled to resume the inams and levy full ayan thirva, these three suits were rightly dismissed by the lower Courts. I accordingly dismiss these three second appeals (Nos. 1877,1878 and 1880 of 1925) with costs.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1