Skip to content


Madini Doraisami Naidu Vs. Syed Mier HussaIn Sahib Bahadur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in97Ind.Cas.767
AppellantMadini Doraisami Naidu
RespondentSyed Mier HussaIn Sahib Bahadur and ors.
Excerpt:
madras estates land act (i of 1908), sections 6, 44, 46 - sivoyjama patta, issue of--admission of third person as ryot after expiry of one year, effect of--sivoyjama pattadar, rights of. - .....he would become a ryot. (see explanation to section 6). but, meanwhile the 2nd defendant had been admitted as ryot to the land and the 1st defendant the proprietor had 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.3. i think the suit has been rightly dismissed.4. the.....
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 royti patta for survey No. 67 in the Atmakur village attached to Naragan tipalayam Zamin. The 1st defendant is the proprietor.

2. 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 he should be admitted as a ryot to survey No. 67 to the extent of 1 cawny, 6 cents for a rent of Rs. 6 0-3 and the 2nd defendant was authorised 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 sivoyjama patta (Ex. C). The effect of describing Ex. Cas a sivoyjama patta is not to recognise 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 had been admitted as ryot to the land and the 1st defendant the proprietor had 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.

3. I think the suit has been rightly dismissed.

4. The petition is dismissed with costs of 2nd defendant.


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