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

1945 Supreme(Mad) 325

CHANDRASEKHARA.AIYAR
Maddela Yenadi – Appellant
Versus
Maddela Ramalakshuamma – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Chandrasekhara, J.

1. There is a line 01 cases which hold that, where service inams are resumed by the Government and there is a re-grant, the original title is extinguished and the grant constitutes the root of a fresh title, but this line of cases does not apply to all service inams irrespective of their nature. Most of them on examination will be found to relate to village officers inams, with reference to which there is a rule of public policy to be kept in mind. As regards a Devadasi service inam, which is the nature of the property involved in this case, there is no rule that an enfranchisement extinguishes the old title and creates a new one. On the other hand, the very Section 44-A of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, under which the enfranchisement was made, takes care to state that an enfranchisement order shall not operate as a bar to the trial of any suit or issue relating to the right as to the enjoyment of the land or the assignment of land revenue, as the case may be.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiffs father-in-law Pitchanna had a one-third share in this property and that Ex. F mentions his name and that of the third defenda




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