Skip to content


Zamindar of Chittedu Vs. Pelleti Pedde Narayanappa Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1912)23MLJ59
AppellantZamindar of Chittedu
RespondentPelleti Pedde Narayanappa Naidu and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....were not dug more than 28 years ago. it is not clear from the appeal judgment whether the judge intended to find that the rents, which were admittedly paid by the tenants, were paid only after the wells were sunk, or whether he intended to set aside the finding of the deputy collector that these garden rates were paid for 40 years. we will therefore ask for findings on the following questions.(1) for what time were the ryots paying the garden rates?(2) when were the wells sunk?(3) whether the ryots were paying garden rates before the wells were sunk?the findings should be submitted within six weeks from the date of this order and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.2. in compliance with the order contained in the above judgment the district judge submitted the following.....
Judgment:

1. The Deputy Collector finds that garden rates were paid by the ryots for nearly 40 years on these lands. The judge finds that the suit lands became garden lands only after the wells were sunk and that the wells were not dug more than 28 years ago. It is not clear from the appeal judgment whether the judge intended to find that the rents, which were admittedly paid by the tenants, were paid only after the wells were sunk, or whether he intended to set aside the finding of the Deputy Collector that these garden rates were paid for 40 years. We will therefore ask for findings on the following questions.

(1) For what time were the ryots paying the garden rates?

(2) When were the wells sunk?

(3) Whether the ryots were paying garden rates before the wells were sunk?

The findings should be submitted within six weeks from the date of this order and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

2. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment the District Judge submitted the following finding, viz.,

3. That the defendants have been paying garden rates on the suit lands since Fasli 1290 at least.

4. That the wells were sunk some time prior to Fasli 1290.

5. That he could come to no definite conclusion, though he considered it not unlikely that the 'garden rates' and the 'sinking of the wells' were contemporaneous.


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