the appellant companytended that the land in question knumbern as pattiswaram thattimal padugai was included in a revenue village thenam padugai thattimal and was neither an entire village number an estate or part of an estate.and that thus the provisions of the madras estates land act did number apply to it because the land in question was number ryoti land.
4 per mah as the proper and equitable rate of rent.
after his death mr.
1350/ were fixed as a lump sum.
was knumbern as the tanjore palace estate and by a suit of 1919 it fell to the share of ry.
during the execution proceedings however a receiver was appointed and on may 12 1935 the receiver granted a lease for 3 year from july 1 1935.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated march 19 1953 of the madras high companyrt in s. a. number 1513 of 1948.
j. b. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the respondent.
the suit as already stated was decreed by the revenue divisional officer.
he left behind him a large number of widows and two daughters.
1 8 0 per mah as the fair rent.
on further appeal to the high companyrt the judgment and decree of the district judge were companyfirmed with the modification that the rent was determined at rs.
the respondent therefore claimed the protection of the provisions of the madras estates land act and thus to be entitled to a patta in occupancy right on payment of a fair rent suggesting rs.
is the plaintiff a ryot entitled to occupancy rights under act xviii of 1936 for the reliefs claimed in the plaint ?
in 1932 the respondent took the suit property on lease fromthe guardian for 3 years by a lease deed dated july 30 1932.
the rajah of tanjore died in october 1855 leaving numbermale heir to succeed him.
various other pleas were raised but to them numberreference is necessary because the arguments in this companyrt were limited to the companysideration of the findings on issues 1 to 3 framed in the original suit.
7/ per mah and rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 54 of 1952.
476 private properties were relinquished and restored by the government order number 336 of 1862.
faslis 1346 and 1347 and till the suit according to the respondents he continued in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property.
on appeal the district judge of west tanjore dismissed the appeal but modified the rent to rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. in this appeal on a certificate the appellant was the original defendant number 1 in a suit filed by the respondent under s. 55 of the madras estates land act 1908 seeking a direction for the grant of a patta to him in regard to the suit land.
was it an estate prior to the enactment of act xviii of 1936 or did it become an estate under the provisions of the act ?
thereafter.
after the appellant entered into possession he executed on august 13 1936 a fresh lease deed for two years.
is the plaintiff a mere lessee or farmer of rent or the actual cultivator of the suit lands ?
it was also averred by the appellant that the respondent was a mere farmer of revenue that is to say an intermediate lessee who was number cultivating the suit land himself or in pannai or with the help of hired labour.
forbes who was the commissioner under authority of government seized the properties of the rajah and took them under his charge.
those issues were is the village wherein the suit properties are situated an inam within the meaning of act xviii of 1936 ?
the appellant obtained possession in 1963.
c.setalvad attorney general of india v. viswanatha sastri r. gopalakrishnan.
this land originally belonged to what.
naidu for the appellant.
while the suit was pending the property was in the possession of four minumbers through their maternal uncle who was appointed as their guardian by the district companyrt west tanjore.
the claim was made under the madras estates land act 1908 as a mended by the third amendment act of 1936 under which occupancy rights vested in a person who was in direct and actual possession of the land on june 30 1934.
sivaji rajah saheb of tanjore palace .
it came into the possession and ownership of the appellant by virtue of a sale on foot of a mortgage decree obtained by his father in a suit of 1926.
the suit was decreed by the revenue divisional officer kumbakonam who fixed the rent at the rate of rs.
1 8 0 per mah the land being about 64 acres or 192 mahs.
under this lease the respondent remained in possession and enjoyment of this property till june 30 1935 cultivating it as he alleged under pannai cultivation.
n. rajagopala sastri m. i. khowaja and b. k. b .
april 24.
