Skip to content


Gopisetti Narayanasawy Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole and Medur Estates Vs. Bondada China Narsigadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.359
AppellantGopisetti Narayanasawy Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole and Medur Estates
RespondentBondada China Narsigadu
Excerpt:
poramboke land in a zemindari - we presumption that it is cultivable poramboke--onus on zemindar to make out his right to cultivate or let out to tenants. - .....record the suit was rightly dismissed. the plaintiff, the receiver of the estate, admits that the land was poramboke. there is no evidence as to the character of the poramboke. there is absolutely nothing to show that it is such as the zemindar would be entitled to let out on cultivation, or to receive kist for, if cultivated without his permission. mr. nagabhushauam may be right in his argument that the word poramboke' is a comprehensive one including lands which might be cultivated. but there is no presumption that any poramboke land is of such a character as could lawfully be cultivated or given out by the zemindar for purposes of cultivation. the only evidence on record is that of the kurnam who says that the land is a part of survey no. 1 of the ankuvedu village belonging to the.....
Judgment:

Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. I am of opinion that on the evidence on record the suit was rightly dismissed. The plaintiff, the Receiver of the estate, admits that the land was poramboke. There is no evidence as to the character of the poramboke. There is absolutely nothing to show that it is such as the zemindar would be entitled to let out on cultivation, or to receive kist for, if cultivated without his permission. Mr. Nagabhushauam may be right in his argument that the word poramboke' is a comprehensive one including lands which might be cultivated. But there is no presumption that any poramboke land is of such a character as could lawfully be cultivated or given out by the zemindar for purposes of cultivation. The only evidence on record is that of the kurnam who says that the land is a part of Survey No. 1 of the Ankuvedu village belonging to the estate. Mr. Nagabhushanam says the land that could not be cultivated would have no survey number. He has not shown me any evidence or any authority which supports the assertion. Assuming the evidence of the kurnam is credible, the fact that the land is treated as part of the village is not sufficient to show that it is cultivable poramboke. I dismiss the petition.


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