Skip to content


S.P.R.M. Ramasami Chettiar Vs. (Raja Sreemathu) Muthu Vijaya Ragunatha Doraisingam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932Mad224; 137Ind.Cas.564
AppellantS.P.R.M. Ramasami Chettiar
Respondent(Raja Sreemathu) Muthu Vijaya Ragunatha Doraisingam
Cases Referred and Seetharama Ayyar v. Fischer
Excerpt:
- .....act. there is very little doubt that its equivalent in other parts of the presidency is jodi or kattubadi, being a favourable quit rent charged upon lands granted for various reasons [see sundararaja ayyangar's land tenures in the madras presidency, edn. 2, p. 206], and there is direct authority in venkatagiri rajah v. venkat rau [1898]21 mad 243, that a suit for jodi is cognizable by a small cause court. there are other eases, such as mosafkanni ravuther v. doraisingam : air1927mad931 and seetharama ayyar v. fischer [1907] 17 m.l.j. 487, which related to small cause suits for such claims in which the matter was not even raised but seems to have been taken for granted. i think accordingly that the finding is correct and i dismiss the civil revision petition with costs.
Judgment:

Curgenven, J.

1. The suit was for poruppu and cesses, and the only question here is whether it was cognizable by a Small Cause Court. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried it as a small cause has answered the question in the affirmative and I can find no reason to differ from his conclusion. He is obviously right in saying that the so-called cesses were not collected by the zamindar as cesses but it was really money with which he reimbursed himself for payment of cesses on behalf of the defendants. I do not think that poruppu is a class of allowance or foe contemplated by Article 13, Schedule 2, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. There is very little doubt that its equivalent in other parts of the Presidency is jodi or kattubadi, being a favourable quit rent charged upon lands granted for various reasons [see Sundararaja Ayyangar's Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency, Edn. 2, p. 206], and there is direct authority in Venkatagiri Rajah v. Venkat Rau [1898]21 Mad 243, that a suit for jodi is cognizable by a Small Cause Court. There are other eases, such as Mosafkanni Ravuther v. Doraisingam : AIR1927Mad931 and Seetharama Ayyar v. Fischer [1907] 17 M.L.J. 487, which related to small cause suits for such claims in which the matter was not even raised but seems to have been taken for granted. I think accordingly that the finding is correct and I dismiss the civil revision petition with costs.


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