It is a plausible argument that a ryotwari pattadars are entitled to the benefits of this Act no matter how much land revenue they pay, a jenmi who is also a ryotwari pattadar and who in the former capacity pays less than Rs. 500 should also be so entitled. But there are no words in the proviso restricting the land revenue payable by a jenmi to the revenue payable only on the land so held by him and taking the clause in its plain meaning we have here a jenmi whose total payments to Government on account of land revenue exceed Rs. 500. I cannot therefore hold that the Courts below have wrongly construed the proviso. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of respondent 2.
Udambanthala Nalupurappatti Mammad v. Vyagram Narayana Pattar And Others
Udambanthala Nalupurappatti Mammad v. Vyagram Narayana Pattar And Others
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Appeal Against Order No. 51 Of 1940 | 06-09-1940
Advocate List
- For the Petitioner K. Kuttikrishna Menon, Advocate. For the Respondents O.T.G. Nambiar, Advocate.
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KING
Eq Citations
- (1940) 2 MLJ 934
- AIR 1941 MAD 305
- LQ/MadHC/1940/302
Head Note
A. Tenancy and Land Laws — Tenancy Acts/Land Reforms/Ceiling on Land — Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Cultivating Tenants (Protection and Relief) Act, 1950 (1 of 1950) — S. 13(1) proviso (a) — Jenmi who is also a ryotwari pattadar and who in the former capacity pays less than Rs. 500 — Held, it is a plausible argument that a ryotwari pattadars are entitled to the benefits of the Act no matter how much land revenue they pay, a jenmi who is also a ryotwari pattadar and who in the former capacity pays less than Rs. 500 should also be so entitled — But there are no words in the proviso restricting the land revenue payable by a jenmi to the revenue payable only on the land so held by him and taking the clause in its plain meaning we have here a jenmi whose total payments to Government on account of land revenue exceed Rs. 500 — I cannot therefore hold that the Courts below have wrongly construed the proviso (Paras 1 and 2)
