Skip to content


Ayyappa Vs. Venkatakrishnamarazu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad484
AppellantAyyappa
RespondentVenkatakrishnamarazu
Cases ReferredSubbu v. Vasanthappan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
rent recovery act (madras) - act viii of 1865, section 3--registered zamindar--zamindari held in coparcenary. - 1. we think that the acting district judge was right in holding that the plaintiff, as the registered zamindar, had a right under act viii of 1865 to compel defendant to accept a patta. the decision in valamarama v. virappa i.l.r. 5 mad. 145 is an authority for the proposition that in a zamindari the only zamindar is the registered zamindar, and we do not think that, upon this point, the authority of that decision has been shaken by the decision in subbu v. vasanthappan i.l.r. 8 mad. 351. in a zamindari the only landholder entitled to proceed under act viii of 1865 against the tenants of the zamindari must be the zamindar, and the only zamindar for the time being is the registered zamindar.2. we dismiss this second appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. We think that the Acting District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff, as the registered zamindar, had a right under Act VIII of 1865 to compel defendant to accept a patta. The decision in Valamarama v. Virappa I.L.R. 5 Mad. 145 is an authority for the proposition that in a zamindari the only zamindar is the registered zamindar, and we do not think that, upon this point, the authority of that decision has been shaken by the decision in Subbu v. Vasanthappan I.L.R. 8 Mad. 351. In a zamindari the only landholder entitled to proceed under Act VIII of 1865 against the tenants of the zamindari must be the zamindar, and the only zamindar for the time being is the registered zamindar.

2. We dismiss this second appeal with costs.


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