Skip to content


Kodali Brahmanna and ors. Vs. Rajah Rungiah Appa Row Bahadur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1892)2MLJ292
AppellantKodali Brahmanna and ors.
RespondentRajah Rungiah Appa Row Bahadur
Cases ReferredAppa Bau v. Ratnam
Excerpt:
- - r 18 m 249. 4. these appeals fail therefore, and are dismissed with costs......that there is no evidence of an implied contract to pay rent at the rates entered in the pattas. rent was paid at these rates for faslis 1292 to 1296 inclusive. from this circumstance the judge presumed a contract to pay at the same rates for subsequent years, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. the question for determination is whether we can say in second appeal that there is no legally sufficient evidence in support of the finding. as observed by a full bench in venkata-gopal v. rangappa i l. r 7 m 365, 'payment of rent in a particular form or at a certain rate for a number of years is presumptive evidence that the parties have agreed to pay and receive rent in that form or at that rate for subsequent years, either party being, of course, at liberty to rebut the.....
Judgment:

1. It is first urged that there is no evidence of an implied contract to pay rent at the rates entered in the pattas. Rent was paid at these rates for Faslis 1292 to 1296 inclusive. From this circumstance the judge presumed a contract to pay at the same rates for subsequent years, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The question for determination is whether we can say in second appeal that there is no legally sufficient evidence in support of the finding. As observed by a Full Bench in Venkata-gopal v. Rangappa I L. R 7 M 365, 'Payment of rent in a particular form or at a certain rate for a number of years is presumptive evidence that the parties have agreed to pay and receive rent in that form or at that rate for subsequent years, either party being, of course, at liberty to rebut the presumption.' It is urged by the appellants' pleader that in that case rent had been paid at the same rate for more than 14 years, and that in Narasimha v. Ramasami I. L. R 14 M 44 and Apparau v. Narasanna I. L. R 15 M 47, such payment for periods of five and six years respectively was hold not to be sufficient to warrant the presumption. We observe however that in the first of these two cases the rent had been paid under a single lease extending over the five years and in the second case certain special circumstances are referred to and it is stated thnt the case was not distinguishable from Narasimha v. Ramasami.

2. We further observe that in both those cases the findings of the Lower Appellate Courts were upheld. The question whether or no there is an implied contract is one of fact, and on--second appeal we must accept the finding of the Lower Appellate Court unless wo are prepared to say that there is no legal evidence on which the finding can be supported. The decision must necessarily depend upon the facts of each case and we cannot say that payment for any particular number of years is essential. It was open to the appellants in this case to have shown that the rent was excessive or unreasonable or that it was intended to hold for any particular period, -owing to special circumstances.

3. We must therefore disallow this objection. Another objection is as to interest being made payable from the date on which each instalment became due, instead of from the end of the year. The judge's decision, on this point is in accordance with Section 37 of Act VIII. of 1865 and with the decision of this court in Appa Bau v. Ratnam 1. L. R 18 M 249.

4. These appeals fail therefore, and are dismissed with costs.


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