Issue
Arguments Of Petitioner
Decision
Sri Raja Visweswara Nissenka Bahadur Garu Zamindar Of Sangamvalsa
v.
Gorla Budaradu
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
No. | 11-03-1910
[1] The suit is for resumption of certain lands held by the defendants on Gadaba service. The defendants at first denied the service but afterwards pleaded that the grant was burdened with service.
[2] The grant was subsequent to the permanent settlement. The burden is on the defendants to show in such a case that the grant was not in lieu of service: See Sanyasi v. Salur Zamindar 7 M. 268 at p. 272; Mahadevi v. Vikrama Razu 14 M. 365 at p. 375; Sri Rajah Sobbanadri Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sri Rajah Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao Bahadur 20 M. 403.
[3] The defendants have adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption. The mere length of enjoyment (40 years) and the uniform Kathubadi are insufficient to rebut the presumption.
[4] The Subordinate Judge holds, and we think rightly, that if the burden be upon the defendant he has not discharged it. We must reverse the decrees of both the lower Courts and decree possession of land sued for with costs throughout.
[5] The amount of profits claimed is not disputed; the plaintiff will also have a decree for Rs. 46 with interest at 6 per cent, from the date of plaint to the date of realisation.
[2] The grant was subsequent to the permanent settlement. The burden is on the defendants to show in such a case that the grant was not in lieu of service: See Sanyasi v. Salur Zamindar 7 M. 268 at p. 272; Mahadevi v. Vikrama Razu 14 M. 365 at p. 375; Sri Rajah Sobbanadri Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sri Rajah Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao Bahadur 20 M. 403.
[3] The defendants have adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption. The mere length of enjoyment (40 years) and the uniform Kathubadi are insufficient to rebut the presumption.
[4] The Subordinate Judge holds, and we think rightly, that if the burden be upon the defendant he has not discharged it. We must reverse the decrees of both the lower Courts and decree possession of land sued for with costs throughout.
[5] The amount of profits claimed is not disputed; the plaintiff will also have a decree for Rs. 46 with interest at 6 per cent, from the date of plaint to the date of realisation.
Advocates List
For The Appearing Parties ---.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RALPH BENSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMI AIYAR
Eq Citation
1910 MWN 436
7 IND. CAS. 401
LQ/MadHC/1910/152
HeadNote
A. Land Acquisition and Requisition — Acquisition of Land — Gadaba Service — Presumption that grant was in lieu of service — Burden of proof — Held, in case of grant subsequent to permanent settlement, burden is on defendants to show that grant was not in lieu of service (Para 2)
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
