Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
NANDURI SARANGAPANI V/S YANDURI VENKATA RATNAM & ANOTHER, decided on Friday, July 3, 1942.
[ In the High Court of Madras, C.R.P.No. 2303 of 1940. ] 03/07/1942
Judge(s) : WADSWORTH
Advocate(s) : N.G. Krishnamachari. V. Subramaniam.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1942 (55) LW 610"  







        (Petition (disposed of on 3-7-1942) under S. 25 of Act IX of 1887 praying the High Court to revise the decree of the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada dated 5-8-1940 in S.C.S. No. 1772 of 1939.)The only question in this revision petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. Admittedly he is a mokhasadar paying Rs. 150 per annum to the Zamindar of Talaprole under an ancient tenure the origin of which is rather obscure. We know that a proposal to enfranchise the inam fell through at the time of the Inam Commission and that the lands continued to be held on a payment varying with the yield of Rs. 4 per putti upto 1889 on which date there was an agreement be tween the Zamindar and the Mokhasadar that instead of this varying payment an annual sum of Rs. 600 should be paid “towards the cist ” the mokhasadars pledging themselves to pay the meras and cesses. It is contended that this annual payment of which the defendant's share is Rs. 150 cannot be described as quit rent jodi poruppu or the like so as to disqualify the defendant under proviso D to S. 3(ii) of the Act from being an agriculturist. It seems to me apparent that the only difference between the annual payment made by these mokhasadars and the quit rent paid on other old inams is that the rate in the present case was fixed not at the time of the Inam Commission but by the subsequent agreement with the Zamindar. I have no doubt that the defendant and his fellow mokhasadars are landholders and that they hold their estate on a fixed and favourable rate of rent and that such fixed favourable rent payable in respect of their enjoyment of a portion of the proprietor's rights to the principal proprietor is in the nature of a quit rent or kattubadi .A point of limitation has been raised but as it was not pleaded in the written statement and if it had been pleaded might have been met by a slight amendment of the plaint I do not think it proper to allow it to be argued in revision.The revision petition is therefore dismissed with costs.