Skip to content


Sri Rajah Inuganti Rajah Gopala Rao Bahadur Garu, Proprietor of Siripuram Etc., Estate and anr. Vs. Chelikani Venkatasurya Rao Garu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1923Mad368; (1923)44MLJ64
AppellantSri Rajah Inuganti Rajah Gopala Rao Bahadur Garu, Proprietor of Siripuram Etc., Estate and anr.
RespondentChelikani Venkatasurya Rao Garu and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....to him are the owners of that separate portion. the zamindar applied to the collector for separate registration, but as the parties did not agree before him, the collector refused to act under section 2, as the result of which the zamindar brought this suit under section 6 of the act.2. the lower court has found in its judgment that defendants 1 to 4 are the owners of the suit lands, but it declined to pass a decree declaring that the suit land should be separately registered and assessed, because it thinks that by apportionment a new burden will be imposed upon the land which was not contemplated by the original grantor. that however is not a consideration for us, to refuse the prayer of the plaintiff. all that we have to decide is who the owner of the land now is. the way in.....
Judgment:

Krishnan, J.

1. This is an appeal from a suit brought under Act 1 of 1876 for separate registration of a portion of a permanently settled estate by the Zamindar as against the defendants who according to him are the owners of that separate portion. The Zamindar applied to the Collector for separate registration, but as the parties did not agree before him, the Collector refused to act under Section 2, as the result of which the Zamindar brought this suit under Section 6 of the Act.

2. The Lower Court has found in its judgment that defendants 1 to 4 are the owners of the suit lands, but it declined to pass a decree declaring that the suit land should be separately registered and assessed, because it thinks that by apportionment a new burden will be imposed upon the land which was not contemplated by the original grantor. That however is not a consideration for us, to refuse the prayer of the plaintiff. All that we have to decide is who the owner of the land now is. The way in which the land was dealt with is this. The land was given by the Zamindar of Bobbili to one Varahalu, his Sharishtadar, on a kattubadi of Rs. 15/- a year. The result of that transactian was, no doubt to make Varahalu only a permanent lessee. But very soon thereafter the Zamindar at the request of the grantee passed an order remitting the entire kattubadi once for all, so that the land passed into the hands of Varahalu free from any kattubadi in favour of the Zamindar. The result of these two transactions taken together was, we think, in effect to make Varahalu the owner of the lands in question as if they had been gifted to him; for, subsequently the Zamindar had no control or interest in them. That being so, the present defendants who are the assignees of that right should also be treated as owners of the lands. The necessary result of that finding is that the declaration sought for by the plaintiff should be given. If there was any understanding of which, however, there is no evidence in this case, that the grantor should himself pay the assessment imposed on the lands after separate registration, that would be a matter of contract between the grantor and the grantee, and by paying the assessment, the grantee will in such a case be able to recover the amount from the grantor. Such a case does not arise here and we are not expressing any opinion about it.

3. In the result, the appeal must be allowed, the decree of the lower Court set aside, and a decree given under Section 6 of Act I of 1876 declaring that separate registration should be made of the lands in question.

4. As regards costs, respondents 1 to 4 must pay the appellant's costs in this Court and in the Lower Court, and also the costs of the 5th Rspondent in the appeal.


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