Chennai Court March 1934 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chennuri Appalanarasiah Chetty Garu Vs. Makka Chittavadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1934
Reported in: 151Ind.Cas.964
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The rent at one time payable on the suit lands was Rs. 132-3-6. In Fasli 1334 the defendant executed a muchilika agreeing to pay increased rent (the increase being at the rate of 2 as per rupee), on the understanding that the plaintiff would repair his irrigation sources. The rent at the increased rate would amount to Rs. 148-12-1. The finding is, that the defendant executed the muchilika voluntarily and received better irrigation facilities in return for the enhanced rent. The defendant urges that the agreement t$ pay increased rent is not enforceable, being opposed to Section 24, Madras Estates Land Act. Both the lower Courts have held that this contention must be upheld and in my opinion rightly. Section 24 says, 'the rent of a raiyat shall not be enhanced except as provided by this Act.' That shows that we must turn to the provisions of the Act to ascertain what course it prescribes for getting the rent enhanced. Section 30 enacts that a landholder may for th...
P.N. Venkata Rao Vs. Anuga Gurusami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad41; (1935)68MLJ172
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 76-5-3 as due for the one-ninth share of Saudheyam inam for these faslis the right in which he claims to have purchased from its owner. Both the lower Courts have granted the plaintiff a decree against the first defendant for one-third share, defendants 2 and 3 for one-third share and defendants 4 and 5 for the remaining one-third share. The plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal on the ground that he ought to have been given a joint and several decree against all the defendants.2. Objection has been taken by the respondents that as the value of the suit is less than Rs. 500 no Second Appeal lies. Both the decision on this objection and also the decision of the suit on the merits depend to some extent on the nature of the inam held by the plaintiff. It is therefore necessary to consider it. The defendants are the mittadars of a mitta known as Pallipattu consisting of two villages. One-third o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›