LexSUNKAVILLI SURANNA AND OTHERS versus GOLI SATHIRAJU AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•• a S.CJi. StlPR:lllME COURT R1ilPo:tt'l's of the orthodox Dattak adoption or an affiliation altogether different from Dattak adoption. We therefore express no opinion on this question. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. SUNKAVILLI SURANNA AND OTHERS v. GOLI SATHIRAJU AND OTHERS (K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA, J. c. SHAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Occupancy Rights-Ryot in possession before permanent Bettlement-Terms as to commencement of tenancy lost in anti- quity-Presumption as lo melvaram and kudirnram.,--Right. of ryots in Z•imindaries-Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (Mad. 1 of 1908), s. 6. The lands in question which were within the permanently settled Zamindari in the then Presidency of Madras, belonged to T who, during his lifetime, was cultivating the lands. He died in 1885 leaving behind, inter alia, three daughters. After the death of the three daughters, the last having died in 1935, the sons of one of them instituted a suit against the descendants of the other two for partition and separate possession of a third share, int,er alia in the lands in question on the footing that T owned occupancy rights in the lands. The suit was resisted on the plea that T had no proprietary right in the. lands, that he was only an annual tenant of the Zamindar, that after his death the lands were held on similar tenure by different members by his family and that occupancy rights were acquired by those members of his family who were in possession of the lands when the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, came into force in 1908. There was no evidence .to sbow that the occupation of the lands by T commenced under the Zamindar, nor was there any evidence as to the terms on which he or his predecessors were inducted on the lands, the commencement of the tenancy and the terms thereof being lost in antiquity, but he and his descendants were proved to have continued in possession of the lands uninterruptedly till the enactment of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. · Iield, that in cases in which a ryot's holding ·is ·not shown to have commenced oubsequent to the permanent settle- ment, the presumption is that Zamindar was only the holdet 1961 Giswa'mi Shru V •l/o!hal1lji v. Goswamini Shru .}[ahalaxmi B•lwji Maharaj Das Gupta J. 1161 Sepuml" 18. 1961 SUllkavilliSurattna .... ' ""·Oofi Salhii'llju Shila J. 654 SUI!REill: OOVRT REPORTS (19112] .. · ... of the mclvaram being the a3signec of the Government revenue, and that rho kudivaram in the land belongc<l to the ryot who \\·as entilll'd to ·continue in poso;ession as Ion·~ as he paid the rent regularly; and that thi• principle was applicable equally in a suit bct\vr.en persons claiming under the ryot as in a suit against the rynt by the Zamindar. Ca<e law relating to the rights of ryots in Zamindaries in~theJMadras Presidency reviewed. H.td, further, that Twas the holder of the occupancy rights in the lands, that these rights devolved upon his successors and that the said occupancy rights '''ere not acquired by virtue of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIOJiO: Civil Appeal No. 424 of 1958. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated ... April 25, 1950, of the llfadras High Court in A. S. No. 67 of 1947. K. Bhirnasankamrn and K. R. Chaudhuri. for the a ppellantg. 3. T. V. R. Tatachari, for respondents Nos. l to P. Ram Reddy, for respondent Ko. 9. Jf. R. Krishna Pill<1i for respomlont No. 24. 1961. Septemher 18. Tho Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAII, J.-Onc Thammiah had two· l!ons- Gangaraju and Ramayya-and four daughtcrs-,- Ammanna, Sesbamma, Gangamma and Bhavamma, of these, the two sons and the daughter Ammanna died during Thammiah 's life time. Gangaraju left him surviving his widow Chetamma and Ramayya his· widow Vonkamma. Arnmanna was survived by her son Rudrayya, who was brought up by Thammiah. Thammiah died in 1885, Soshamma in 1904, Gangamma in 19:l0 and Bhavamma in 1935. After tho death of Bhavamma, Pnddarnju (herein- after called the plaintiff}, son of Gnngamma filed Suit No. 53 of I !J44 in the court of. the Subordinate ·• • >--t. ·- ... 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COuRT REPORTS 655 .Judge at Rajamundhry against the descendants of Seshamma apd Ammanna for a decree for partition and separate possession of a third share in 17 lands, described in Schedule B to the plaint as "agricul· tural land and ·measuring in t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.