Skip to content


Maddu Yerrayya Vs. Yadulla Kangali Naidu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ764
AppellantMaddu Yerrayya
RespondentYadulla Kangali Naidu and anr.
Cases ReferredCheekati Zamindar v. Ramasooroo Dhore I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - if the plaintiffs' inam were in a zemindari they could not be in a better position as regards the right to eject the defendant than the zemindar who created the inam. 381. as the plaintiffs have failed to prove a right to eject the defendant we must reverse the district judge's decree and restore that of the munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate court.1. we are unable to uphold the decision of the district judge. the plaintiffs are inamdars. they sue to eject the defendant, who and whose predecessors have been in possession for about fifty years. the plaintiffs have given no evidence of a right to eject the defendant which the judge is inclined to accept. if the plaintiffs' inam were in a zemindari they could not be in a better position as regards the right to eject the defendant than the zemindar who created the inam. if the inam was situated outside a zemindari and was granted by government there would be no presumption in their favour that they were entitled to eject. the decision in achayya v. hanumantrayudu i.l.r. (1891) m. 269 has been explained as based on the particular facts of that case in cheekati zamindar v. ramasooroo.....
Judgment:

1. We are unable to uphold the decision of the District Judge. The plaintiffs are inamdars. They sue to eject the defendant, who and whose predecessors have been in possession for about fifty years. The plaintiffs have given no evidence of a right to eject the defendant which the Judge is inclined to accept. If the plaintiffs' inam were in a zemindari they could not be in a better position as regards the right to eject the defendant than the zemindar who created the inam. If the inam was situated outside a zemindari and was granted by Government there would be no presumption in their favour that they were entitled to eject. The decision in Achayya v. Hanumantrayudu I.L.R. (1891) M. 269 has been explained as based on the particular facts of that case in Cheekati Zamindar v. Ramasooroo Dhore I.L.R. (1899) M. 381. As the plaintiffs have failed to prove a right to eject the defendant we must reverse the District Judge's decree and restore that of the Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.


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