Skip to content


A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachellam Chettyar Through His Aughorised Agent, Sundararaja Iyengar Vs. Kayambu Ambalam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.932
AppellantA.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachellam Chettyar Through His Aughorised Agent, Sundararaja Iyengar
RespondentKayambu Ambalam and ors.
Excerpt:
madras estates land act (i of 1908,), section 112 - sale of ryot's holding--insufficiency of notice--duty of court to specify particular deject in service. - .....suits. he held the service to have been properly effected except in a few cases. on appeal, the district judge reversed the finding. it is not disputed that the landlord sent to the collector four copies of the notices as required by section 112 of the estates land act. the complaint is that the collector, or his officers, did not serve the notices in the manner required by that section. the district judge does not say that he accepts the evidence of the totti of the village who gave evidence in plaintiff's favour. he says that the evidence of service should not be unreservedly accepted. then, he says: 'the proof of service of the present notice is insufficient and that is all that can be said.' it is not clear what exactly the judge meant by this observation. the service might be.....
Judgment:

1. We cannot regard the judgment of the District Court in this batch of cases as satisfactory. The suits were by some of the ryots of a village contesting the right of the landholders to bring their holdings to sale for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs alleged that notice of the intention to sail the holdings was not properly served on them. The Deputy Collector dismissed the suits. He held the service to have been properly effected except in a few cases. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the finding. It is not disputed that the landlord sent to the Collector four copies of the notices as required by Section 112 of the Estates Land Act. The complaint is that the Collector, or his officers, did not serve the notices in the manner required by that section. The District Judge does not say that he accepts the evidence of the Totti of the village who gave evidence in plaintiff's favour. He says that the evidence of service should not be unreservedly accepted. Then, he says: 'The proof of service of the present notice is insufficient and that is all that can be said.' It is not clear what exactly the Judge meant by this observation. The service might be insufficient on several grounds. In these cases, personal service was not effected. The return states that the ryots would not accept the notices. They were accordingly affixed to their houses, to their lands and to the Church in the village. Whether the District Judge thought that it was not proved that a personal service was possible or that the notices were not affixed or, as the plaintiff alleged, the peons did not go to this place at all, it is impossible to say from his observation sat oat above. It is possible that the appellants may have an answer to the objection to the service of notice if the defect is of one kind, and no answer if it was of another kind. We must, therefore, hold that the appeals have not been satisfactorily disposed of. We reverse the decree of lower Appellate Court and remand the appeals for fresh disposal according to law.

2. It is necessary that the Appellate Court should direct its attention to the question of the exact defects attaching to the service of the notices (in three different ways provided for in the Estates Land Act), if they were served at all, so that any question arising on the findings of fact may also be disposed of. The costs of these second appeals will abide the result.


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