https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172414 A suit for ejectment was not defeated merely because no separate issue was framed on the rival character of the land, where both parties understood the real controversy and fully led evidence, so no prejudice or mis-trial arose. The land was treated on the evidence as a Karnikam service inam from 1903 to 1925, and the proprietor's resumption was upheld under the village-service statute; the materials did not establish a Dharmila inam immune from resumption. The later patta and revenue records were consistent with valid resumption and regrant, and the contrary view was rejected. en-us Tue, 17 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:57:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172414 A suit for ejectment was not defeated merely because no separate issue was framed on the rival character of the land, where both parties understood the real controversy and fully led evidence, so no prejudice or mis-trial arose. The land was treated on the evidence as a Karnikam service inam from 1903 to 1925, and the proprietor's resumption was upheld under the village-service statute; the materials did not establish a Dharmila inam immune from resumption. The later patta and revenue records were consistent with valid resumption and regrant, and the contrary view was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172414