Skip to content


Raja Parthasaradhi Appa Rao Savai Aswa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of Sanivarappet and Five ors. Vs. Raja Bommadevara Satyanarayana Varaprasadha Rao Naidu Bahadur Zamindar of South Vallur, Minor by the Manager Under the Court of Wards - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1916)ILR39Mad944
AppellantRaja Parthasaradhi Appa Rao Savai Aswa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of Sanivarappet and Five ors.
RespondentRaja Bommadevara Satyanarayana Varaprasadha Rao Naidu Bahadur Zamindar of South Vallur, Minor by the
Excerpt:
madras estates land act (i of 1908,) section 6, sub-section (6) and section 8 - government lands under ryotwari tenure, purchased by zamindar--release of revenue on such lands--zamindari lands, acquired, by government under land acquisition act (i of 1894)--compensation--substitution of ryotwari lands as zamindari lands--suit to eject--jurisdiction of civil courts--acquisition by landholder of occupancy right--acquisition by tenant of landholder's right, difference between. - .....were substituted as a part of his zamindari for the zamin lands which were acquired under the land acquisition act, it must be borne in mind that prior to the exchange the zamindar as regards the suit lands was in the position of a government ryot and as such owned the kudivaram right. he had therefore, in our opinion, a right of occupancy in the lands within the meaning of the explanation to sub-section (6) of section 6 of the madras estates land act and therefore he did not by the terms of the explanation lose such occupancy right by becoming interested in the land as landholder, that is, by the land becoming part of his estate.2. it is then said that this is opposed to the plain provisions of section 8(1) which provide that in such a case the owner shall hold the land as a.....
Judgment:

Seshagiri Ayyar, J.

1. Assuming without deciding that the effect of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the Government was that the suit lands were substituted as a part of his zamindari for the zamin lands which were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it must be borne in mind that prior to the exchange the Zamindar as regards the suit lands was in the position of a Government ryot and as such owned the kudivaram right. He had therefore, in our opinion, a right of occupancy in the lands within the meaning of the explanation to Sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore he did not by the terms of the explanation lose such occupancy right by becoming interested in the land as landholder, that is, by the land becoming part of his estate.

2. It is then said that this is opposed to the plain provisions of Section 8(1) which provide that in such a case the owner shall hold the land as a landowner and not as a ryot. The language of Section 8(1) is no doubt wide enough to cover such a case, but the rest of the section rather indicates that in framing it the legislature was thinking of the acquisition of occupancy rights by landholders and not of the acquisition of landholders ' rights by ryots. But, however this may be, the general provisions of Section 8(1) must, we think, yield to the special provisions of the explanation as to this particular, on the principle generalia specialibus wore derogant. For this reason, we think that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.


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