Skip to content


Kandada Narasimhacharyalu Ayyavarlam Garu Vs. Kavicherla Ramabrahmam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in20Ind.Cas.759; (1913)24MLJ656
AppellantKandada Narasimhacharyalu Ayyavarlam Garu;kandada Thonamma
RespondentKavicherla Ramabrahmam;paritila Narasanna
Excerpt:
- - 1. it is argued before us that the facts admitted show prima facie that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession and the defendants have failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff......prima facie that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession and the defendants have failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff. the plaintiff is one of the agraharamdars who obtained the village on inam from the nuzvid zamindar. the presumption therefore is that they have only the melvaram rights. the origin of the defendant's tenancy is not shown and it is clear they have been in possession for a very long time. the plaintiff has however produced two muchilikas executed by the defendants in the two suits in which they admit they have no occupancy right. it is not however contended that they estop the defendants from setting up their occupancy right. the judge has taken them into consideration and found that the terms in these documents were newly introduced and.....
Judgment:

1. It is argued before us that the facts admitted show prima facie that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession and the defendants have failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is one of the Agraharamdars who obtained the village on Inam from the Nuzvid Zamindar. The presumption therefore is that they have only the melvaram rights. The origin of the defendant's tenancy is not shown and it is clear they have been in possession for a very long time. The plaintiff has however produced two muchilikas executed by the defendants in the two suits in which they admit they have no occupancy right. It is not however contended that they estop the defendants from setting up their occupancy right. The judge has taken them into consideration and found that the terms in these documents were newly introduced and therefore not of sufficient weight to rebut the presumption in the defendant's favour arising from the other circumstances in the cases. The other evidence also supports the plaintiff's contention. But the question is one of fact, and we are unable to say the judge has not considered the whole evidence We feel therefore constrained though with some hesitation to confirm the judgment and dismiss the second appeals.


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