SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(AP) 16

CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, K.RAMACHANDRA RAO, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Nistala Seshayya Bhukta – Appellant
Versus
Vasa Bageyya` – Respondent


CHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE questions that fall for decision by the Full Bench are whether Panasa Nandivada Agraharam is an estate within the meaning of Sec. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and whether Explanation 3 is applicable to it notwithstanding that a small portion of it was resumed prior to the passing of the Act.

( 2 ) THIS is the problem that presents itself in all the appeals and revision petitions. They arise out of suits brought by the appellant-petitioner for recovery of rents against tenants in the several Courts of Srikakulam district for different faslis.

( 3 ) THESE suits were resisted by the defendants, inter alia, on the defence that the lands being situate in an estate within the definition of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act which described an estate, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suits. These objections prevailed with all the Court, except in O. S. No. 52 of 1953, the subject matter of which was 15 acres 76 cents. This suit was decreed as it was found to be ryotwari land and, therefore, excepted from the scope of estate defined in the Act.

( 4 ) THE circumstances under which the tenure of these lands differ






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top