Skip to content


Ravikanti Kamoji Rao and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Sri Raja Mirja Sri Pusapati Viziarama Gajapati Raju Bahadur Minor Rajah, Vizianagaram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945Mad283; (1945)1MLJ432
AppellantRavikanti Kamoji Rao and ors.
RespondentSri Sri Sri Raja Mirja Sri Pusapati Viziarama Gajapati Raju Bahadur Minor Rajah, Vizianagaram and an
Cases ReferredAmbu Mair v. Kelu Nair I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....is contended that this portion of the decree is illegal in the light of section 25 of the madras estates land act as amended in 1934, and that the appellants are entitled to contend in bar of execution that to this extent the decree is opposed to the statute. they rely on certain observations in ambu mair v. kelu nair i.l.r. (1929) mad. 805.2. it seems to me that the obscurations upon which the appellants rely have no bearing on the present, case. under the madras estates land act as it stood at the time when this compromise decree was passed, the decree for the payment of nazardna in respect of old waste was lawful. that decree the respondent is executing at a time when the law has changed. in my opinion, it is not open to the appellants to plead in bar of execution a provision of law.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an order in execution of a compromise decree. The only question raised in the appeal relates to an amount of Rs. 676 which was included in the compromise as premium in respect of land described as old waste, for the occupation of which the compromise makes provision. It is contended that this portion of the decree is illegal in the light of Section 25 of the Madras Estates Land Act as amended in 1934, and that the appellants are entitled to contend in bar of execution that to this extent the decree is opposed to the statute. They rely on certain observations in Ambu Mair v. Kelu Nair I.L.R. (1929) Mad. 805.

2. It seems to me that the obscurations upon which the appellants rely have no bearing on the present, case. Under the Madras Estates Land Act as it stood at the time when this compromise decree was passed, the decree for the payment of nazardna in respect of old waste was lawful. That decree the respondent is executing at a time when the law has changed. In my opinion, it is not open to the appellants to plead in bar of execution a provision of law which was not in existence at the time when the decree was passed. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs;


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