Skip to content


K. Raghava Naidu Vs. P. Muthiyalu Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1915Mad1070(2); (1915)28MLJ301
AppellantK. Raghava Naidu
RespondentP. Muthiyalu Naidu
Excerpt:
- - it costs 200 or 300 to sink a well' and it is said that after this statement they considered it unnecessary to examine their own witnesses in attendance to prove the fact......arcot submitted the following finding viz., that the patta tendered was not a proper one and that the maximum rate which the landholder is entitled to levy for crops raised on dry lands by the aid of the tenants' wells is the cumbu ragi rate.5. after the receipt of the above finding the court delivered the following
Judgment:

1. On the 26th September 1913, The Lower Courts have decided that there is no evidence to show that the tenants have constructed wells. On behalf of the appellant it is pointed out that the only witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff stated.--' All the defendants own wells on their dry lands. It costs 200 or 300 to sink a well' and it is said that after this statement they considered it unnecessary to examine their own witnesses in attendance to prove the fact. This evidence is not disbelieved by the Lower Courts, and there is no explanation of it. We think it desirable in the circumstances that the question whether the wells were sunk by the landlord or tenants should be further investigated.

2. We direct the judge to return a finding on the 2nd issue after deciding the question aforesaid on further evidence.

3. The finding should be submitted within six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

4. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Judge of North Arcot submitted the following finding viz., that the patta tendered was not a proper one and that the maximum rate which the landholder is entitled to levy for crops raised on dry lands by the aid of the tenants' wells is the cumbu ragi rate.

5. After the receipt of the above finding the Court delivered the following


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