Gopaladasu Garu Vs. Perraju

Gopaladasu Garu vs Perraju

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 06, 1902

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/774178

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/774178
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Mar 06, 1902
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gopaladasu Garu

Respondent

Perraju

Legal References

Reported In: (1902)12MLJ126

Excerpt

- 1. we think the plaintiff's 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 defendant's 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.

Full Judgment

1. We think the plaintiff's 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 defendant's 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.

Same Parties Gopaladasu Garu vs Perraju Same Subject Tenancy

Tenancy