Skip to content


Tiruvandhipuram Lakshmi Kumara Akkulu Nayanim Varu, Zemindar of Chittedu by His Gumashtah, Gudali Ramiah Vs. Palleti Pedda Narayanappa Nayudu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.563
AppellantTiruvandhipuram Lakshmi Kumara Akkulu Nayanim Varu, Zemindar of Chittedu by His Gumashtah, Gudali Ra
RespondentPalleti Pedda Narayanappa Nayudu and ors.
Cases Referred and Paramaswummi v. Pusala Thevan
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - bent, suit for--garden rates--absence of evidence as to payment of lesser rent for any prior period--enhancement of rent. - .....two points referred to him: that is, that both the sinking of the wells and the payment of the garden rates must be referred to some period prior to fasli 1290, but how long before, it is impossible to say in either case.2. the third point was, 'whether the defendants were paying garden rates before the wells were sunk.' on this the district judge says there is practically no evidence and he can come to no definite conclusion, although he considers it 'not unlikely that the garden rates and the sinking of the wells were contemporaneous.' we cannot treat this very guarded surmise ns a finding and can only take it that no finding is possible.3. in these circumstances, what conclusion should be arrived at? in our opinion, the landlord's claim must be allowed.4. the salient feature in.....
Judgment:

1. We accept the findings of the District Judge on the first two points referred to him: that is, that both the sinking of the wells and the payment of the garden rates must be referred to some period prior to Fasli 1290, but how long before, it is impossible to say in either case.

2. The third point was, 'whether the defendants were paying garden rates before the wells were sunk.' On this the District Judge says there is practically no evidence and he can come to no definite conclusion, although he considers it 'not unlikely that the garden rates and the sinking of the wells were contemporaneous.' We cannot treat this very guarded surmise ns a finding and can only take it that no finding is possible.

3. In these circumstances, what conclusion should be arrived at? In our opinion, the landlord's claim must be allowed.

4. The salient feature in this case, which at once distinguishes it from the cases relied on by the respondents, Fischer v. Kamakshi Pillai 21 M.k 136; Aruwugam Chetti v. Raja Jagaveera Rama Venkateswara Ettappa 15 M.L.J. 292 and Paramaswummi v. Pusala Thevan 20 M.L.J. 142, is that there is no evidence in this case to show that any lower rate than that now claimed was ever at any time paid. In other words, it is impossible to treat this as a case of enhancement of rent. The rent now claimed has been, in fact, paid for at least 28 years before suit and there is no evidence of payment at any other rate. The landlord's claim must, therefore, be allowed. The decrees of the District Judge are set aside and those of the Deputy Collector restored with costs to the plaintiff throughout.


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