Skip to content


Thayyita Kalliani Vs. Nherakkayyil Kanaran and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad436
AppellantThayyita Kalliani
RespondentNherakkayyil Kanaran and ors.
Excerpt:
.....is well settled that if a rule passes the twin tests of (i) being founded on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) such differentia having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, it cannot be said to be violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. the impugned rule creates a classification of persons, who were not involved in criminal cases and persons, who were involved in criminal cases. the object of creating such a classification is to ensure that only those persons, whose character and antecedents were beyond and shadow of doubt alone, are permitted entry into the police service of the state. the rule is only a reflection of the intention of the government to maintain purity of administration. the rule merely provides a check post or a filter point, to ensure that.....orderwadsworth, j.1. the basis of the decision of the lower court is erroneous. there appears to be no reason why an agriculturist tenant should not get the benefit of act, 4 of 1938, by paying the rent on the holding for faslis 1346 and 1347, merely because there is a cotenant who is not an agriculturist. but there is an obstacle to the petitioner's success which was raised, though not decided by the lower court. it appears that the landlord in this case is a melcharthdar and if so he is not a jenmi or intermediary and the rent cannot be scaled down as against him. the petition is therefore dismissed with costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

Wadsworth, J.

1. The basis of the decision of the lower Court is erroneous. There appears to be no reason why an agriculturist tenant should not get the benefit of Act, 4 of 1938, by paying the rent on the holding for Faslis 1346 and 1347, merely because there is a cotenant who is not an agriculturist. But there is an obstacle to the petitioner's success which was raised, though not decided by the lower Court. It appears that the landlord in this case is a melcharthdar and if so he is not a jenmi or intermediary and the rent cannot be scaled down as against him. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs.


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