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

1902 Supreme(Mad) 46

Gopaladasu Garu – Appellant
Versus
Perraju – Respondent


JUDGMENT

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.

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