Ayyappa Vs. Venkatakrishnamarazu

Ayyappa vs Venkatakrishnamarazu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 04, 1892

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/786013

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/786013
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Handley, J.
Decided On: May 04, 1892
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Rent Recovery Act (Madras) - Act VIII of 1865, Section 3--Registered zamindar--Zamindari held in coparcenary. -

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ayyappa

Respondent

Venkatakrishnamarazu

Legal References

Cases Referred: Subbu v. Vasanthappan I.L.R.
Reported In: (1892)ILR15Mad484

Excerpt

rent recovery act (madras) - act viii of 1865, section 3--registered zamindar--zamindari held in coparcenary. - 1. we think that the acting district judge was right in holding that the plaintiff, as the registered zamindar, had a right under act viii of 1865 to compel defendant to accept a patta. the decision in valamarama v. virappa i.l.r. 5 mad. 145 is an authority for the proposition that in a zamindari the only zamindar is the registered zamindar, and we do not think that, upon this point, the authority of that decision has been shaken by the decision in subbu v. vasanthappan i.l.r. 8 mad. 351. in a zamindari the only landholder entitled to proceed under act viii of 1865 against the tenants of the zamindari must be the zamindar, and the only zamindar for the time being is the registered zamindar.2. we dismiss this second appeal with costs.

Full Judgment

1. We think that the Acting District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff, as the registered zamindar, had a right under Act VIII of 1865 to compel defendant to accept a patta. The decision in Valamarama v. Virappa I.L.R. 5 Mad. 145 is an authority for the proposition that in a zamindari the only zamindar is the registered zamindar, and we do not think that, upon this point, the authority of that decision has been shaken by the decision in Subbu v. Vasanthappan I.L.R. 8 Mad. 351. In a zamindari the only landholder entitled to proceed under Act VIII of 1865 against the tenants of the zamindari must be the zamindar, and the only zamindar for the time being is the registered zamindar.

2. We dismiss this second appeal with costs.

Same Parties Ayyappa vs Venkatakrishnamarazu Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Handley, J.

Tenancy