Skip to content


Arunachala Sastry Vs. Krishna Sastry and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.272
AppellantArunachala Sastry
RespondentKrishna Sastry and ors.
Cases ReferredIndety Nagadu v. Potu Kinchi Venkatasubbiah
Excerpt:
madras estates land act (i of 1908), section 3, clause 2(d) - landlord and tenant--lease--plea that holding is an estate within the meaning of the act--onus of proof--suit by shrotriamdar--jurisdiction of small cause court. - wallis, j.1. according to the recent decision in indety nagadu v. potu kinchi venkatasubbiah 1 m.w.n. 639 : 8 m.l.t. 376 : 8 ind. cas. 365, it is for the, defendant who raises a defence of this kind to show that the land in question forms part of an estate as defined in the madras estates land act i of 1908. the definition in section 3 clause 2(d) is expressly limited to villages in which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam a person not owning the kudivaram right. there is no evidence, and no presumption, that such is the case here. the decree must be set aside, and a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs for rs. 6 with costs throughout.
Judgment:

Wallis, J.

1. According to the recent decision in Indety Nagadu v. Potu Kinchi Venkatasubbiah 1 M.W.N. 639 : 8 M.L.T. 376 : 8 Ind. Cas. 365, it is for the, defendant who raises a defence of this kind to show that the land in question forms part of an estate as defined in the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908. The definition in Section 3 Clause 2(d) is expressly limited to villages in which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam a person not owning the Kudivaram right. There is no evidence, and no presumption, that such is the case here. The decree must be set aside, and a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 6 with costs throughout.


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