<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1946 (8) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291397</link>
    <description>Cardamom cultivation falls within &quot;agriculture&quot; under Section 3(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act because the statutory meaning includes horticulture and cultivation carried on through human agency, including sowing, transplanting and replanting. On that construction, the lessees had permanent occupancy rights over the leased land except the pannai lands. The civil court could also grant a decree for arrears of rent attributable to the 125 acres of pannai lands because the amount was severable and could be apportioned without requiring a separate suit. The claim for the remaining leased area failed, while relief was confined to the pannai lands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 1946 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2020 13:57:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1946 (8) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291397</link>
      <description>Cardamom cultivation falls within &quot;agriculture&quot; under Section 3(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act because the statutory meaning includes horticulture and cultivation carried on through human agency, including sowing, transplanting and replanting. On that construction, the lessees had permanent occupancy rights over the leased land except the pannai lands. The civil court could also grant a decree for arrears of rent attributable to the 125 acres of pannai lands because the amount was severable and could be apportioned without requiring a separate suit. The claim for the remaining leased area failed, while relief was confined to the pannai lands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 1946 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>