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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 529

T. V. K. Kamaraja Pandiya Naicker – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary of State for India in Council, through the Collector – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and I agree with him on both the points as regards the maintainability of the suit and as regards the construction to be put upon Section 79(iii) of the Madras Local Boards Act. I wish only to make a few remarks on the latter point, as the former becomes academic on the view we take as to the meaning of Section 79(iii), and the non-maintainability of the suit was merely urged by the respondent in case we differ from the finding of the lower Court with regard to the construction of this section.

2. As observed by my learned brother, the wording of Section 79(iii) has remained practically the same since the Local Funds Act of 1871, although the position of the landholder in relation to private lands has in the meanwhile undergone considerable change. In Section 2(iii) of the Rent Recovery Act of 1865 the wording was slightly different in describing how the rates of rent were to be determined. Where there was no special contract between the landlord and the tenant and when no money assessment has been fixed on the fields, it is there stated that rent is to be paid





















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