Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Kamatchi Ammal vs Agilandammal And Ors. on 5 March, 1883
Equivalent citations: (1883) ILR 6 Mad 334
Author: K Charles Turner
Bench: C A Turner, Kt., M Ayyar


JUDGMENT

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. Regulation VI of 1831 reserved to the Revenue authorities the decision of all claims to hereditary village or other offices in the Revenue or Police Departments, and prohibited the Civil Courts from entertaining such claims. That prohibition has not been removed, and, although the enfranchisement of Inam lands restores the jurisdiction of the Courts over the enfranchised lands, it does not authorize the Courts to call in question decisions already passed by Revenue Officers, under the provisions of Regulation VI, prior to the enfranchisement. The order of Mr. Barlow passed in 1876 was intended to be a decision of the claim made by the appellant, who should have presented an appeal from it; until he had obtained the office he was not entitled to the emoluments, and, as the emoluments were severed from the office before he obtained a recognition of his right to the office, the Civil Court cannot award them to him.

2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

64 queries in 0.110 seconds.