Skip to content


Rangaswami Iyengar and P. Vaithinatha Iyer Vs. the District Board of Tanjore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ728
AppellantRangaswami Iyengar and P. Vaithinatha Iyer
RespondentThe District Board of Tanjore
Excerpt:
- - there is, however, nothing before us to show that the appellants were in possession when the act came into force, so that this contention must fail......is no provision of law that patta and muchilika must be tendered together. patta having been refused, we do not think it was necessary for the landlord to go through the useless formality of tendering a muchilika for execution. it is lastly contended that the patta tendered allowed a month for the execution of the muchilika and that the ejectment proceedings were premature. as the patta was refused there is nothing in this contention. this second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. It is first contended that under Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act the appellants have a permanent right of occupancy. There is, however, nothing before us to show that the appellants were in possession when the Act came into force, so that this contention must fail.

2. It is next contended that the Collector's judgment merely directed the defendants to accept the amended patta, and omitted to direct the defendants to execute a muchilika in accordance with it and that as in fact no muchilika was tendered by the landlord along with the patta, the landlord has not made out his right to evict under Section 10 of Act VIII of 1865. The judgment should no doubt have ordered the execution of a muchilika, but we do not think the omission is material in this case. It is found that an amended patta was tendered and refused and if the defendants refused to accept the patta they would certainly have refused to execute a muchilika. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is the duty of the landlord to tender a muchilika for execution, there is no provision of law that patta and muchilika must be tendered together. Patta having been refused, we do not think it was necessary for the landlord to go through the useless formality of tendering a muchilika for execution. It is lastly contended that the patta tendered allowed a month for the execution of the muchilika and that the ejectment proceedings were premature. As the patta was refused there is nothing in this contention. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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