Skip to content


Rangasami Iyengar and anr. Vs. the District Board of Tanjore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.730
AppellantRangasami Iyengar and anr.
RespondentThe District Board of Tanjore
Excerpt:
madras estates land act (i of 1908), section 6 - occupancy right--possession at date of act--tender of amended pattah--refusal--landlord's liability to tender muchilika--when absolved. - - so that this contention must fail......no provision of law that pattah and muchilika must be tendered together. pattah having been refused, we do not think it was necessary for the landlord to go through the useless formality of tendering a muchilika for execution. it is lastly contended that the pattah tendered allowed a month for the execution of the muchilika and that the ejectment proceedings were premature. as the pattah was refused there is nothing in this contention. this second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. It is first contended that tinder Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act the appellants have a permanent right of occupancy. There is, however, nothing before us to show that the appellants were in possession when the Act came into force; so that this contention must fail.

2. It is next contended that the Collector's judgment merely directed the defendants to accept the amended pattah, and omitted to direct the defendants to execute a muchilika in accordance with it, and that as in fact no muchilika was tendered by the landlord along with the pattah, the landlord has not made out his right to evict under Section 10 of Act VII of 1865. The judgment should, no doubt, have ordered the execution of a muchilika but we do not think the omission is material in this case. It is found that an amended pattah was tendered and refused and if the defendants refused to accept the pattah they would certainly have refused to execute a muchilika. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is the duty of the landlord to tender a muchilika for execution, there is no provision of law that pattah and muchilika must be tendered together. Pattah having been refused, we do not think it was necessary for the landlord to go through the useless formality of tendering a muchilika for execution. It is lastly contended that the pattah tendered allowed a month for the execution of the muchilika and that the ejectment proceedings were premature. As the pattah was refused there is nothing in this contention. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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