Skip to content


Gandikota Kamanna Vs. Tondapu Satti Reddy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Mad919; (1940)2MLJ467
AppellantGandikota Kamanna
RespondentTondapu Satti Reddy
Excerpt:
- king, j.1. i see no ground for revision. it is quite clear from the language of section 3(ii), proviso b of act iv of 1938 that assessment for four consecutive half years from october, 1935 to september, 1937, is not required - as if that were so, the word 'throughout' would be found in the place of the word 'within'. the second argument is that it is only a person who has been validly assessed who is excluded from the definition of agriculturist. i see nothing in the language of the proviso to support this view. the words are simple 'has been assessed' and they are qualified by no adverb relating, to the correctness or validity of the assessment.2. the petition is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

King, J.

1. I see no ground for revision. It is quite clear from the language of Section 3(ii), Proviso B of Act IV of 1938 that assessment for four consecutive half years from October, 1935 to September, 1937, is not required - as if that were so, the word 'throughout' would be found in the place of the word 'within'. The second argument is that it is only a person who has been validly assessed who is excluded from the definition of agriculturist. I see nothing in the language of the proviso to support this view. The words are simple 'has been assessed' and they are qualified by no adverb relating, to the correctness or validity of the assessment.

2. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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