Skip to content


Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur Zemindar Vema Reddy Abbuta Row Naiyudu Vs. Sobhanadri Appa Row Bahadur Garu Being Minor by Manager, Munshi Syed Bandaji Sahib - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1903)13MLJ209
AppellantVenkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur Zemindar Vema Reddy Abbuta Row Naiyudu
RespondentSobhanadri Appa Row Bahadur Garu Being Minor by Manager, Munshi Syed Bandaji Sahib
Excerpt:
- - 2. both the second appeals fail and are dismissed with costs......not been attacked on any legal ground, and we are bound by it. that being so, it was competent to the zemindar to gave notice and resume the lands. it is found that since 1882 the services have been discontinued, and that shortly after 1882 the zemindar took possession of the 15 kattis of land which had been in possession of the peons. in 1886 the zemindar gave formal notice to the nayaks that he would at the end of the fasli resume possession of the 3 kattis of land which were in their possession it is contended for the appellants that as there was no similar notice in regard to the 15 kattis, the resumption thereof was unlawful. but as the services had been discontinued and possession of the 15 kattis had been resumed by the zemindar since 1882 to the knowledge of the nayaks, we must.....
Judgment:

1. The finding of the District Judge that the lands were given to the Nayaks as remuneration for services of a private nature to be rendered to the Zemindar has not been attacked on any legal ground, and we are bound by it. That being so, it was competent to the Zemindar to gave notice and resume the lands. It is found that since 1882 the services have been discontinued, and that shortly after 1882 the Zemindar took possession of the 15 kattis of land which had been in possession of the peons. In 1886 the Zemindar gave formal notice to the Nayaks that he would at the end of the fasli resume possession of the 3 kattis of land which were in their possession It is contended for the appellants that as there was no similar notice in regard to the 15 kattis, the resumption thereof was unlawful. But as the services had been discontinued and possession of the 15 kattis had been resumed by the Zemindar since 1882 to the knowledge of the Nayaks, we must hold that the Nayaks acquiesced in what was done and that the Zemindar was not bound to give formal notice in respect of those lands.

2. Both the second appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.


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