Skip to content


Govinda Goundar and anr. Vs. Ramien and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Mad335(2); 25Ind.Cas.600
AppellantGovinda Goundar and anr.
RespondentRamien and ors.
Excerpt:
land acquisition act (i of 1894), sections 31(2), 32(1) - unenfranchised service inam, owner of, whether competent to alienate. - .....upon fresh evidence, if necessary, whether these sections are applicable and, if so, to dispose of the case according to law. the 1st appellant must pay the costs of the 1st respondent in the.....
Judgment:

1. The appellants have failed to establish their right to the property. Our attention has, however, been drawn to the provisions of Section 31 (2) and Section 32 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act as to the acquisition of property which the owner has no power to alienate. The inam in question is a service inam granted for the performance of a service in the temple and liable unless it has been enfranchised, to be resumed by Government for failure to perform the service. Unless it has been enfranchised, as to which, we have no evidence, it is, in our opinion, land which the owner is incompetent to alienate within the meaning of the sections. These provisions do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the District Judge and we have decided to remit the case to him to ascertain upon fresh evidence, if necessary, whether these sections are applicable and, if so, to dispose of the case according to law. The 1st appellant must pay the costs of the 1st respondent in the appeal.


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