Skip to content


Madini Doraswami Naidu Vs. Syed Mir HussaIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad975
AppellantMadini Doraswami Naidu
RespondentSyed Mir HussaIn and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the deputy collector of chittoor under section 46 of the estates land act and he seeks to get a ryoti patta for survey no. 67 in the atmakur village attached to narangatipalayam zamin. the 1st defendant is the proprietor. the history of the holding seems to be that an old tenant who cultivated it abandoned it about 15 years before suit and afterwards it was cultivated off and on by others. apparently, it was left vacant at the end of fasli 1330, i.e., 30th june 1921. on 4th july 1921 a cousin of the plaintiff 2nd defendant, made an application for being admitted to the land. it was favourably received by the proprietor and an order was issued in favour of the 2nd defendant that she should be admitted as a ryot to survey no. 67 to the extent of 1 cawny 6 cants, for a rent of rs. 6-0-3,.....
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. The plaintiff is the petitioner before me. He filed a suit before the Deputy Collector of Chittoor under Section 46 of the Estates Land Act and he seeks to get a ryoti patta for Survey No. 67 in the Atmakur village attached to Narangatipalayam zamin. The 1st defendant is the proprietor. The history of the holding seems to be that an old tenant who cultivated it abandoned it about 15 years before suit and afterwards it was cultivated off and on by others. Apparently, it was left vacant at the end of Fasli 1330, i.e., 30th June 1921. On 4th July 1921 a cousin of the plaintiff 2nd defendant, made an application for being admitted to the land. It Was favourably received by the proprietor and an order was issued in favour of the 2nd defendant that she should be admitted as a ryot to Survey No. 67 to the extent of 1 cawny 6 cants, for a rent of Rs. 6-0-3, and the 2nd defendant was authorized to enter upon the land, The plaintiff applied for the same land on 31st July alleging that he occupied it and had begun to cultivate it. He sent two reminders. Ultimately in June 1922 a patta was issued to him and it was described as Sivojama patta (Exhibit C). The effect of describing Exhibit C. as a sivoyjama patta is not to recognize him as a ryot but only to collect some amount from him for his occupation within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act. If the landlord receives two such payments from him, no doubt he would become a ryot, see explanation to Section 6. But, meanwhile, the 2nd defendant has been admitted as a ryot to the land and the 1st defendant, the proprietor, has no right to introduce another ryot in the land in derogation of the rights of the 2nd defendant. The result is the plaintiff has no right at all to the land. The question of non-occupancy or occupancy ryot does not arise. His occupation is only that of a trespasser, and whatever the relationship between him and the 1st defendant may be in the absence of the 2nd defendant he has no right as against the 2nd defendant. Even as against the 1st defendant his possession is no more than that of a trespasser--a trespasser from whom rent has been collected for one year.

2. I think the suit has been rightly dismissed. The petition is dismissed with costs of the 2nd defendant.


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