Skip to content


Duvvada China Jagayya Cowdary and 9 ors. Vs. Probha Narasimham - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in20Ind.Cas.832; (1913)25MLJ15
AppellantDuvvada China Jagayya Cowdary and 9 ors.
RespondentProbha Narasimham
Excerpt:
- 1. we do not think the provisions of act viii of 1865 require the exchange of a second muchilika, and a second patta between the ryot and the farmer of land under the zamindar, when for the same fasli a patta and a muchilika have already been exchanged between the ryot and the zamindar. this is the only ground argued. the appeal is dismissed with costs.2. the same judgment follows in s.a. no. 1573 of 1910 presented from the decree of the district court of ganjam in a.s. no. 1 of 09 preferred against the decree of the district munsif of sompettah in o.s. no. 127 of 08.
Judgment:

1. We do not think the provisions of Act VIII of 1865 require the exchange of a second muchilika, and a second patta between the ryot and the farmer of land under the Zamindar, when for the same fasli a patta and a muchilika have already been exchanged between the ryot and the zamindar. This is the only ground argued. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

2. The same judgment follows in S.A. No. 1573 of 1910 presented from the decree of the District Court of Ganjam in A.S. No. 1 of 09 preferred against the decree of the District Munsif of Sompettah in O.S. No. 127 of 08.


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