Skip to content


Subbarayan Chettiar Vs. Ameer MoidIn Rowthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Mad440
AppellantSubbarayan Chettiar
RespondentAmeer MoidIn Rowthan
Cases ReferredNarikkal Chathan v. Kesavan A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....nayar v. kesavan reported in : air1941mad816 , in support of his contention. needless to say, the learned judges in narikkal chathan v. kesavan a.i.r. 1942 mad. 242 said nothing of the sort. on the contrary, the learned chief justice states almost at the outset of his judgment that 'the jenmi . . . may resume occupation if there is a genuine intention to cultivate.' far from allowing the suit upon the jenmi's stating that he requires the land for his own cultivation, the court is bound to dismiss his suit unless he satisfies the court that he genuinely requires the land for his cultivation. it is true that it is not always easy to decide what a man's intentions with regard to something that is to happen in the future are; but the court has nevertheless to decide the question on such.....
Judgment:

Horwill, J.

1. The appellant filed a suit for eviction of his kanomdar on the ground that he required the land for his own cultivation under Section 20(5), Malabar Tenancy Act. Both the Courts have held against him on this point.

2. Mr. Krishna Variar contends that when once the landlord tells the Court that he requires the land for his own cultivation, the Court has no discretion but to decree the suit for eviction and that the only remedy of the kanomdar in a case where the claim by the landlord is not bona fide and the landlord does not in fact take up the land for his own cultivation is to apply under Section 21 (1) to be re-instated; and he quotes Narikkal Chathan v. Kesavan A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 242, which overruled Banian Nayar v. Kesavan reported in : AIR1941Mad816 , in support of his contention. Needless to say, the learned Judges in Narikkal Chathan v. Kesavan A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 242 said nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the learned Chief Justice states almost at the outset of his judgment that 'the jenmi . . . may resume occupation if there is a genuine intention to cultivate.' Far from allowing the suit upon the jenmi's stating that he requires the land for his own cultivation, the Court is bound to dismiss his suit unless he satisfies the Court that he genuinely requires the land for his cultivation. It is true that it is not always easy to decide what a man's intentions with regard to something that is to happen in the future are; but the Court has nevertheless to decide the question on such material as it has before it. In the case under consideration, the learned Subordinate Judge has devoted the whole of p. 3 of his judgment to discussing the circumstances that are relevant and have a bearing on this question whether the appellant requires the land bona fide for his own cultivation. It is true, as Mr. Krishna Variar says, that not one point discussed by the learned Subordinate Judge is in itself conclusive; but it was possible for the learned Subordinate Judge to come to the conclusion he did from the various circumstances discussed throughout that page. I should indeed have been surprised if the learned Subordinate Judge had come to any other conclusion on the material before him.

3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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