Skip to content


Sri Rajah Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu (Died) Vs. Muppidi Subba Reddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in20Ind.Cas.753; (1913)24MLJ655
AppellantSri Rajah Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu (Died)
RespondentMuppidi Subba Reddi and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....lower appellate court has found that the ryots acquired occupancy rights under section 6 of the estates land act, even if they had none before. the plaintiff made no attempt to prove that any of the lands in question was his private land. the presumption with regard to an inam is that it consists only of the melvaram. the only evidence referred to to rebut the presumption consists of two dumbalas dd, ee, but they do not show that theinamdar was entitled to any thing more than the melvaram share of the produce. annual dumbalas were often issued by zamindars to enable inamdars to recover the melvaram share of the produce. no attempt was made to prove any circumstances which would show that the inam grant included the kudivaram or that the inamdar was himself the owner of the kudivaram.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff is, the proprietor of a share of an entire agraharam. The suits are to eject certain ryots of the village. The lower appellate Court has found that the ryots acquired occupancy rights under Section 6 of the Estates Land Act, even if they had none before. The plaintiff made no attempt to prove that any of the lands in question was his private land. The presumption with regard to an inam is that it consists only of the melvaram. The only evidence referred to to rebut the presumption consists of two dumbalas DD, EE, but they do not show that theinamdar was entitled to any thing more than the melvaram share of the produce. Annual dumbalas were often issued by Zamindars to enable inamdars to recover the melvaram share of the produce. No attempt was made to prove any circumstances which would show that the inam grant included the Kudivaram or that the inamdar was himself the owner of the Kudivaram at the time that the inam was granted. A Brahmin inamdar is hardly likely to have been the cultivating ryot. Exhibits DD and EE rather go to show that the melvaram had to be recovered from the ryots in occupation through the agency of the village officers. The village is therefore an estate within the definition of that expression contained in Section 3 of the Estates Land Act. It is not contended that any of the lands was old waste. The ryots therefore acquired occupancy rights under Section 6 of the Estates Land Act. It is unnecessary to consider whether they had such rights before We dismiss the second appeals with costs.


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