Skip to content


Pusarla Peda Brahamaj and ors. Vs. Krishnama Chariar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in55Ind.Cas.703
AppellantPusarla Peda Brahamaj and ors.
RespondentKrishnama Chariar and anr.
Cases ReferredFischer v. Secretary of State
Excerpt:
madras land revenue assessment act (i mad. of 1879), preamble, sections 1, 2, 6 - 'by sale or otherwise,' in preamble, whether includes acquisitions by prescription--application for separate registration--concurrence of alienor and alienee, absence of, effect of--suit under section 6, maintainability of. - .....by prescription and that is not a case of alienation: (2) they and the zemindar, to whom the land originally belonged, did not concur in applying for separate registration.2. as regards (1) we have been shown no reason for excluding acquisitions by prescription from the description ' sale or otherwise.'3. as regards (2) fischer v. secretary of state for india in council 19 m.p 292 shows that notwithstanding the absence of both parties' concurrence in the application, the aggrieved party's remedy is by a suit under section 6 of the act.4. in any case, however, it does not seem to us that plaintiffs have any grievance, on which they can sue. they admit before us that the suit land was originally the property of the zemindar and that they have acquired it. in these circumstances they.....
Judgment:

1. It is argued that the orders of the Special Deputy Collector were ultra vires and outside the scope of his authority under Act I of 1876, because (1) plaintiffs claimed by prescription and that is not a case of alienation: (2) they and the Zemindar, to whom the land originally belonged, did not concur in applying for separate registration.

2. As regards (1) we have been shown no reason for excluding acquisitions by prescription from the description ' Sale or otherwise.'

3. As regards (2) Fischer v. Secretary of State for India in Council 19 M.P 292 shows that notwithstanding the absence of both parties' concurrence in the application, the aggrieved party's remedy is by a suit under Section 6 of the Act.

4. In any case, however, it does not seem to us that plaintiffs have any grievance, on which they can sue. They admit before us that the suit land was originally the property of the Zemindar and that they have acquired it. In these circumstances they are, whatever errors there were in the procedure of the Deputy Collector under the Act, bound to pay their proportion of the peshhush and to submit to separate registration in token of that liability.

5. The second appeals are dismissed with costs, one set.


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