Back
Judges : P.T.RAMAN NAYAR
DUDACHAN - Appellant
Versus
SREENIVASA KINI - Respondent
Case No : C. R. P. No. 1066 of 1962
Decided On : 12/10/1962
Advocates Appeared :
T. P. Krishnan Nair; Thammanath Aravindaksha Menon; For Petitioner V. Rama Shenoi; R. Raya Shenoi; For Respondent
varomdar - Land Rights - The court interpreted clauses (54), (55), (40), and (50) of Act IV of 1961 to establish that a varomdar only has the right to cultivate the land with paddy and does not have the right of fishing. The person under whom the varomdar holds is considered the person in possession under the law, and a varomdar has only a right of occupation, not possession in the legal sense.
Fact of the Case:
The court found no reason to interfere with the receiving order, as the varomdar's rights were limited to cultivating the land with paddy and did not include the right of fishing.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition with costs, upholding the appointment of the third party receiver and rejecting the petitioner's claim to be appointed in his place.
Issues: Interference with receiving order, varomdar's rights, appointment of receiver
Ratio Decidendi: The varomdar's rights are limited to cultivating the land with paddy, and the person under whom the varomdar holds is considered the person in possession under the law.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs, and the appointment of the third party receiver was upheld.
1. I see no reason to interfere. The receiving order has become final, and, quite apart from that, clauses (54) and (55) of S.2 of Act IV of 1961 make it clear that a varomdar like the petitioner has, as such, only the right to cultivate the land in question with paddy (and in the absence of some other contract which would not be part of the varom arrangement, no right of fishing which is the right the petitioner claims) and that the person under whom he holds is the person in possession under law, that clause (40) makes it equally clear that a varomdar like any other licensee has only a right of occupation which is not possession in the legal sense of that word although it is called possession for the purposes of the Act, and that a varomdar being made a tenant under clause (50) only by the device of an inclusive definition it does not follow that he satisfies the definition in the body of the clause as a person allowed to possess and to enjoy the land; no grounds whatsoever are made out for the removal of the third party receiver (against whose appointment the petitioner unsuccessfully moved in appeal and in revision) and the appointment of the petitioner (the plaintiff in the suit) in his place.
I dismiss the petition with costs.
Dismissed.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
