Skip to content


Maddu Yerrayya Vs. Yadulla Kangali Naidu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR34Mad246
AppellantMaddu Yerrayya
RespondentYadulla Kangali Naidu and anr.
Cases ReferredCheskati Zamindar v. Ranasooru Dhora I.L.R.
Excerpt:
ejection - inamdar--right of, to eject tenants--presumption of such right. - - 318. as the plaintiffs have failed to prove a right to eject the defendant, we must reverse the district judge's decree and restore that of the munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate court......have been in possession for about fifty years. the plaintiffs have given no evidence of a right to eject the defendant which the judge is inclined to accept. if the plaintiff's inam were in a zamindari they could not be in a batter position as regards the right to eject the defendant than the zamindar who created the inam. if the inam were situated outside a zamindari and was granted by government there would be no presumption in their favour that they were entitled to eject. the decision in achayya v. hanumantrayudu i.l.r. (1891) mad. 269 has bean explained as based on the particular facts of that case in cheskati zamindar v. ranasooru dhora i.l.r. (1900) mad. 318. as the plaintiffs have failed to prove a right to eject the defendant, we must reverse the district judge's decree.....
Judgment:

1. We are unable to uphold the decision of the District Judge. The plaintiffs are inamdars. They sue to eject the defendant, who and whose predecessors have been in possession for about fifty years. The plaintiffs have given no evidence of a right to eject the defendant which the Judge is inclined to accept. If the plaintiff's inam were in a zamindari they could not be in a batter position as regards the right to eject the defendant than the Zamindar who created the inam. If the inam were situated outside a zamindari and was granted by Government there would be no presumption in their favour that they were entitled to eject. The decision in Achayya v. Hanumantrayudu I.L.R. (1891) Mad. 269 has bean explained as based on the particular facts of that case in Cheskati Zamindar v. Ranasooru Dhora I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 318. As the plaintiffs have failed to prove a right to eject the defendant, we must reverse the District Judge's decree and restore that of the Munsif with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court.


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