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

1968 Supreme(Mad) 32

ISMAIL
Govlndasami Pillai – Appellant
Versus
T. M. Srinivasa Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Parasaram, for Appellant; R. Kesava Iyengar, for Respondent.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- These four appeals raise a common question. S. A. No. 1557 of 1965 is filed by the respondents in S. A. 1357 of 1965 to the extent to which the decisions of the courts below went against them.

2. The short facts, the narration of which is necessary for the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, are that the village of Mathi in Tanjore Dt. is an estate to which the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 and the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 applied; but not the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948. The respondents to the first three appeals claimed that the lands with reference to which they filed the present suit for recovery of rent were private lands. It is the common case of the parties that a notification under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 was made by the Government fixing reduced rates of rent for ryoti lands in the village of Mathi. However, the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947, as originally passed did not contain any provision for deciding the question whether a particular piece of land is a ryoti land or a private land in an estate with reference to wh



















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