Skip to content


Sankara Rayamma Vs. Andusmalli Venkatratnam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1913)24MLJ30
AppellantSankara Rayamma
RespondentAndusmalli Venkatratnam and ors.
Cases ReferredDakhina Mohan Roy v. Saroda Mohan Boy I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....was wrong in not making allowance for the cultivation expenses incurred by the defendants. the cases referred to by him altap ali v. lalji mal i.l.r. (1877) a. 518, dungar mal v. jairam i.l.r. (1902) a. 375, dakhina mohan roy v. saroda mohan boy i.l.r. (1893) c. 142 , do not support his view. these cases referred to a claim for the costs of collecting the rent due from the persons in occupation of land. the plaintiff claims rupees four an acre for those expenses. it is not contended that the claim is excessive. we allow it. the appellant is not able to shew that the amount paid by him for revenue and water-cess was more than the value of straw and some hemp which has been set off against it. the order of the lower court is modified by deducting from the amount decreed cultivation.....
Judgment:

1. The Judge was wrong in not making allowance for the cultivation expenses incurred by the defendants. The cases referred to by him Altap Ali v. Lalji Mal I.L.R. (1877) A. 518, Dungar Mal v. Jairam I.L.R. (1902) A. 375, Dakhina Mohan Roy v. Saroda Mohan Boy I.L.R. (1893) C. 142 , do not support his view. These cases referred to a claim for the costs of collecting the rent due from the persons in occupation of land. The plaintiff claims Rupees Four an acre for those expenses. It is not contended that the claim is excessive. We allow it. The appellant is not able to shew that the amount paid by him for revenue and water-cess was more than the value of straw and some hemp which has been set off against it. The order of the Lower Court is modified by deducting from the amount decreed cultivation charges at Rs. 4 an acre.

2. The Respondent objects to the court fee and pleader's fee on Rs. 9883-6-0. The amount of profits prior to the plaint has been omitted by mistake in the order of the Lower Court. This is not denied. The error must be corrected by re-taxing the costs. Each party will have proportionate costs in this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //