GOVINDA MENON, RAMASWAMI GOUNDER
T. Govindaswamy Naidu – Appellant
Versus
The Tanjore Palace Devasthanam represented by its hereditary Trustee Sri R. Y. Rajaram Raja Sahib – Respondent
The material facts have been sufficiently elaborately stated in the judgment under appeal and so do not require reiteration except for the purpose of appreciating the legal question discussed hereunder. Summary Suit No. 37 of 1942 was filed by the appellant under section 35 of the Madras Estates Land Act for the grant of a patta against the respondent. The Tanjore Palace Devasthanam is represented by its hereditary trustee Sri Rajaram Rajah Saheb. The appellant who was a lessee from the respondent for a period of one year of the lands in question claimed that they have become an estate under the Madras Act XVIII of 1936 as a result of which he was entitled to the grant of a patta with the consequent exchange of muchilika, whereas the respondent’s contention was that they are private lands to which no occupancy rights could be attached. Though the trial Court decided in f
Zamindar of Chellappalli v. Samayya I.L.R. 39 Mad. 341 : [1914] 27 M.L.J. 718
Kondayya Rao v. Naganna : [1939] 2 M.L.J. 778
Karuppi v. Palaniappa Chettiar : [1954] 2 M.L.J. 454
Jagadeesam Pillai v. Kuppammal LL.R. [1946] Mad. 687; : [1946] I M.L.J. 23
Periannan v. A. S. Amman Koil I.L.R. [1952] Mad. 741 (F.B.) : [1952] 1 M.L.J. 71
Pentakota Narayudu v. Venkata Ramamurthi : [1949] 2 M.L.J. 623
Periannan v. A. S. Amman Koil I.L.R. [1952] Mad. 741 : [1952] 1 M.L.J. 71
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.