Skip to content


Raja Sambasadasiva Chinna Rayal Varu Vs. Bandar Maddulappa and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Mad73; 74Ind.Cas.968
AppellantRaja Sambasadasiva Chinna Rayal Varu
RespondentBandar Maddulappa and anr.
Cases ReferredGajapati Rajah v. Suryanarayanu
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule 1, act 110 - suit for recovery of jodi--limitation. - .....be said if the matter were res integra, i think, i must follow these rulings which have not been overruled or dissented from. following them, 1 must hold that article no, applies and the suit is barred as held by the lower court.2. the petition (civil revision petition no 273 of 1922) is dismissed with costs.3. civil revision petition no. 274 of 922 follows and is dismissed; but there will be no costs as no one appears for the respondent.
Judgment:

Krishnan, J.

1. The question raised in this case is one of limitation as to arrears of jodi and road-cess claimed by the zemindar against the defendant who holds the suit land on service in am under him subject to payment of jodi as well. This Court has been taking the view that jodi is only favourable rent. See the observation in Venkatagiri Rajah v. Venkat Rau 21 M. 243 : 7 Ind. Dec. 528, and the case reported in Gajapati Rajah v. Suryanarayanu 22 M. 11 : 8 Ind. Dec.8 in the latter case the question raised was one of limitation and only 3 years arrears were decreed. Though there may be a good deal to be said if the matter were res Integra, I think, I must follow these rulings which have not been overruled or dissented from. Following them, 1 must hold that Article no, applies and the suit is barred as held by the lower Court.

2. The petition (Civil Revision Petition No 273 of 1922) is dismissed with costs.

3. Civil Revision Petition No. 274 of 922 follows and is dismissed; but there will be no costs as no one appears for the respondent.


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