Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)The Court-fees Act, 1870
A. Suryanarayana vs A. Patanna And Eight Ors. on 9 October, 1913
Suryanarayana v. Patanna negatives the idea that in the case of an inamdar it should be presumed that the grant was of the royal share of the revenue only.
Bollapragada Subbarayudu And Ors. vs Valluri Narasimha Rao on 13 February, 1924
11. I do not understand from the passage in Subbarayudu v. Narasimha Rao (1924) 47 M L J 558, already referred to, that if a landlord proves an occupier to be his tenant, and the occupier sets up occupancy right and fails to prove it, the landlord has to prove anything more. A case seems to be contemplated where the tenant 'denies the relationship of landlord and tenant and also, as an alternative plea, claims occupancy right in the event of his being found to be a tenant, then of course even if his occupancy right were disproved the landlord would still be confronted with the denial of tenancy. But of course in an actual trial, the landlord would first be called upon to prove the tenancy and only after he had fulfilled that task, would the tenant be called upon to prove occupancy right and if the tenant failed to prove such right, the right to eject would be presumed.
Subramania Aiyar Alias Gurumurthi ... vs Onnappa Goundan And Ors. on 12 February, 1920
This principle which was originally stated in Muthuswami Aiyar v. Nainar Ammal (1917) 7 L W 194 which Subramania Aiyar v. Onnappa Goundan (1920) 39 M L J 629 merely affirms see also Snbbarayudu v. Narasimha Rao (1924) 47 M L J 558 (561), is obvious even without authority. If a landlord claims a right to eject, and a defendant both denies that right and dlaims occupancy rights in himself, the rejection of the tenant's claim is no evidence of the landlord's. But if the tenant admits the right to eject, by admitting that he is tenant, but pleads that it is barred by his occupancy right, then the removal of the bar, leaves the admission as effective proof.
Thavasi Ammal Alias Mahalakshmi Ammal ... vs Salai Ammal on 2 October, 1917
But whereas, in the present case, the defendant admits the relationship of landlord and tenant, and merely rests his defence on occupancy right, the plaintiff is not compelled to rely upon the specific lease that is set forth in the plaint (again Thavasi Ammal v. Salai Ammal (1917) 35 M L J 281 is in point). This seems to have been understood when the first issue was framed; for it is not, whether the lease relied upon by plaintiff is valid1; but generally whether defendant is a tenant holding from year to year or holding under occupancy right. The Subordinate Judge is quite correct in saying that defendant is not estopped from denying the tenancy, but seems to have overlooked that so far from availing himself of his opportunity, defendant admitted the tenancy.
Kuppu Reddi Nookayya (Dead) And Ors. vs Mandaluka Bheemanna And Anr. on 15 December, 1922
That the inclusion or exclusion from the assets of the Zamindary is an important consideration is also laid down in Kuppu Reddi Nookayya v. Bheemanna (1923) M W N 176 (180) The defendants could have raised this point at the trial if so advised; but I cannot find that plaintiff was bound to adduce evidence on the matter, or that her failure to do so vitiates the Lower Court's concurrent finding on the fact.
Muthu Goundan vs Perumal Iyen And Five Ors. on 7 January, 1921
In Muthu Goundan v. Perumal Iyen (1921) I L R 44 M 588 : 40 M L J 429 (F B) a Full Bench of this Court held that in the case of minor inams there was a presumption that both varanis were granted sufficient to throw the burden upon the occupier who claimed occupancy right.
Promotha Nath Ganguly And Anr. vs Amiraddi Sheikh And Ors. on 21 January, 1919
8. Parties do not pray for declarations when there is no obstacle to be removed and plaintiff will again state that she is the landlord, relying, if no further evidence is forthcoming, upon defendant's admissions in these suits, and defendants will again set up occupancy rights, confronted, however, by the finding in these suits, and the Court-fee will still be payable under Section 7, Clause (xi)(cc). I therefore see no force in the argument which the learned Subordinate Judge found upon this section, and if there were some technical Court-fee difficulty it could presumably be got over by allowing plaintiff to pay the necessary additional sum as now prayed in the eighth ground of appeal and for which Pramatha Nath Ganguly v. Amiraddt Sheikh (1919) 24 C W N 151 would be authority.
1