Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (7.12 seconds)
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs K. Janakiramayya And 12 Ors. on 24 January, 1913 cites

Kandukuri Mahalakshmamma Garu, ... vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 9 September, 1910

295, have held as a matter of law on the facts put before us in that case that the Vamsadhara is a river belonging to the Government: Mr. Nagabhushanam did not on this point lay before as any facts which were not before the Bench in Kanduhuri Mahalakshmamma Garu, Proprietrix of Urlam v. The Secretary of State for India (1911) I.L.R. 34 Mad. 295 but argued as a matter of law that the decision in tmat case is wrong.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Sri Rajah Narayya Appa Row Bahadur ... vs Sri Rajah Venkatadri Appa Row Bahadur ... on 19 January, 1893

63. The appellant is one of the Nuzvid Zamindarg whose judicial history will be found in Baja Verikata Bern v. Court of Wdrds (1879) I.L.R. 2 Mad. 128 (P.C.) and Sri Rajah Venkata Naranimha Appa Bow v. Sri Rajah Rangayya, Appa Row (1906) I.L.R. 29 Mad. 437. The Zamindar alleged that the defendant, the Secretary of State, constructed in 1803 the Ellore Canal to oarry the anicut water through the Zamindari and thereby obstructed the flow of water into one of his tanks Voddu Cheruvu from his other three tanks, and since that time the Government have been supplying him with water free of charge for the cultivation of his lands, about 607 acres 14 cents, which depended on these tanks for their irrigation. From 1889 they allowed water-supply free of charge only for 427 acres 91 cents, and on his appeal from such reduction it was still further reduced to 202 acres 67 cents, lie prays for a declaration of his right to the supply of water as before and for certain reliefs consequential on such declaration. The Government filed their written statement and issues were framed which covered all the questions of fact relied upon by the plaintiff. But without taking any evidence, the question whether the plaint discloses a cause of action was first argued and decided against the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhy vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 19 March, 1905

In Ambalavana Pandara Sawnadhi v. Secretary of State for lndia (1905) I.L.R. 28 Mad. 539 it was held that a grant of village " with all wells, tanks and waters " within the boundaries did not pass to the grantee an artificial water-course then existing which irrigated the village granted and other lands. There was no mention in the grant of the channel although the existence and importance of channels as separate entities was present to the mind of the grantor and although tanks and wells were separately mentioned. It was held that the. omission of the channel was intentional and that from that circumstance it was clear that it could not have been the intention of Government to recognise the inamdar's title to the channel or its bed. The effect to be given to the insertion of the words " besides poramboke" must depend on the evidence available in each case and the circumstances attending the grant, In this case it is extremely unlikely that when the whole of th0 village was granted in 1767 by Sitaramrasa it was not intended to convey to the grantee all the waste and porambokes in the village. The British Government accepted that grant and recognised the inamdar's title under it. The channel was not one which passed through any Government property before it reached the village of Lakkimdidi. It is apparently not a large stream connected with any system of irrigation maintained by Government and as found by the former District Judge the channel was not controlled by the Government to any appreciable extent. There was no intention on the part of Government at any time to derogate from the grant made in 1767. Both of the learned District Judges who dealt with the case proceeded on the footing that the channel and other poramboke in the village belonged to the inamdar. On the whole we see no reason to dissent from that conclusion. It has therefore not been proved that the water irrigating the village belongs to Government. In the result, we dismiss the appeal with costs. The memorandum of objections has not been argued and is also dismissed with costs.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next