Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
Section 4 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur ... vs Sobhanadri Appa Row Bahadur Garu Being ... on 18 September, 1902
In Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sobhanadri Appa Row Bahadur (1905) I.L.R. 29 M 52 at 57 : 16 M L J 1 (P C) the Judicial Committee observe that the records of the Circuit Committee could not affect the rights as between the mokhasadars and the Zemindar but they, however, agreed with the High Court in thinking that they might be good evidence with reference to the system upon which the Government claimed to deal with the Zemindar's property, and it is that question that has fallen to be decided in the present cases. As there appears to be no doubt that the mokhasas in question owned by the plaintiffs in these suits were not excluded.at the time of the Permanent Settlement from consideration in computing the assets of the zemindari it follows that they are still held on a permanent under-tenure of the Nuzvid zemindari and therefore these suits are by Section 189 of the Madras Act I of 1908 excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. It may follow incidentally that under Section 6 of that Act the persons in occupation of ryoti land have acquired permanent occupancy, but this is not for us to decide in the present appeals. Nor is it necessary in these proceedings to make any pronouncement whether the Zemindar has a subsisting right to resume these mokhasas seeing that the Zemindar is not a party and the point does not directly arise.
Section 5 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mahaboob Sarafarajawant Sri Raja ... vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 10 October, 1913
It seems to me equally probable that, although these villages may not strictly be grants by a Zemindar to their relations or dependents and all we have to go by is the recital in Ex. YYYY (1) that these villages have been in existence for 400 years when the zemin-dari came into existence these villages were adopted so to speak by the Zemindar as under-tenures from him and almost certainly with the duty of service attached to them on the part of the mokhasadars. There is evidence in this case that the services required from these mokhasadars were Deshmuk. The villages were so described in Ex. YYYY (1) and the mokhasadars are described as Deshpandyas or collectors of revenue under the Zemindar. It seems to me, therefore, that we have a case of mokhasa villages practically in the position of grants of inams for personal service, and if that is so, Sri Raja Parthasarathi Appa Rao Bahadur v. Secretary of State (1913) I.L.R. 38 M 620 : 26 M L J 39 is authority for the position that: prima facie these villages form part of the estate of the zemindari and are resuma-ble by the Zemindar and not by Government.This is the opinion of Mr. Taylor in the Proceedings of the Madras Government, 1860, Ex. III, and it seems to me that we ought not lightly to put aside this opinion which was adopted by Government, Ex. IV, following as it did the conclusions of the Circuit Committee. The argument on the other side depends on the table in Ex. YYYY (1) which shows that the total average receipts from these three villages were 909 Madras pagodas per annum, of which 834 was the amount paid by the mokhasadars to the Circar and the balance 95 pagodas is classed under the heading of " Net Receipts by the Mirasidars per annum. " It is contended by Mr. Ramadoss for the respondents in accordance with the judgments of the Lower Courts that we must take 834 pagodas as a favourable rent and therefore as outside the operation of Section 3(e) of the Madras Estates Land Act. It seems to me to be equally arguable that of the total collection of 909 Madras pagodas 834 was the rent actually payable in cash and 75 was the rent received by or payable to the Zemindar in kind; that is to say, that 75 pagodas was allowed off the rents in respect of the services rendered by the mokhasadars. The Circuit Committee says that services are not to be excluded. [See Fifth Report by Firminger, page 174, paragraph 16, which are instructions issued by the Madras Government in October, 1799, when undertaking the Permanent Settlement, and in paragraph 17 it is stated that it had been resolved to accept the statement of the Committee of Circuit as the general standard]. Reference is made to the foot-note to Ex. XXI (b), an abstract of the revenue collections taken by the Circuit Committee, namely, that the mokhasa villages and grants being immediately under the Zemindar and given or resumed when he pleases are included in Government (therefore Zemindar's) collections. The revenue retained by the present mokhasadars after payment of the usual proportion is 8362 Madras pagodas, 17 F. 65 C. That is dealt with by Mr. Taylor in paragraph 4 of Ex. Ill and he adds: "This is also borne out by the villagevar accounts of the Circuit Committee."
1