Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Gopaladasu Garu
Versus
Perraju
Decided On : 06.03.1902
Enhanced Rent - Disputed Assessment - The court referred to Regulation XXV of 1802, Section 3, which states that in cases of disputed assessment, reference shall be made to sunnads and Kabul eats, and judgment shall be given in conformity with the conditions of the agreement. The court found that the Zemindar had bound himself not to change the quit-rent, and there was no consideration for the enhanced payments. The defendant's letters also indicated that he did not have a legal right to the enhanced rate and promised to return the excess. Therefore, the court upheld the decision of the District Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff's cause of action arose when each demand for the enhanced rent was made, and the suit was not barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Zemindar had bound himself not to change the quit-rent, and there was no consideration for the enhanced payments. The defendant's letters also indicated that he did not have a legal right to the enhanced rate and promised to return the excess. Therefore, the court upheld the decision of the District Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: Disputed assessment of enhanced rent, existence of legal right to the enhanced rate, consideration for enhanced payments
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Regulation XXV of 1802, Section 3, and the absence of consideration for the enhanced payments to determine that there was no agreement to continue paying the enhanced amounts.
Final Decision: The court upheld the decision of the District Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.
1. We think the plaintiffs cause of action arose when each demand for the enhanced rent was made and the suit was not barred.
2. By the Regulation XXV of 1802, Section 3, in all cases of disputed assessment reference shall be had to sunnads and Kabul eats and judgment shall be given by the courts of judicature in conformity to the conditions under which the agreement may have been formed in each particular case.
3. In this case a reference the kabuleat shows that the Zemindar bound himself not to change the quit-rent. Though the enhanced rate has been paid for a long time, it is not shown that there was any consideration for such enhanced payments and from the defendants letters, Exhibits A and H, it is clear that he did not, when ho wrote them in 1891 and 1894, pretend that he had then any legal right to the enhanced rate, but on the contrary he promised to return the excess. In these circumstances, we should not be prepared to infer from the mere fact of the long continued payments any agreement to continue to pay the enhanced amounts.
4. We think that the decision of the District Judge was therefore right and dismiss this appeal with costs.
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
