https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293098 Land used only for grazing was held not to be ryoti land unless it was cultivable land within the statutory definition. Mere leasing for pasturage did not create ryot status or occupancy rights, and the defendants failed to prove that the lands were cultivable. As a result, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction under the Madras Estates Land Act. On the possession claim, the plaintiff was entitled to ejectment because the defendants held the lands under annual grazing leases, and damages, interest, and costs were allowed at the agreed rate. en-us Tue, 07 Mar 1916 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2021 11:08:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293098 Land used only for grazing was held not to be ryoti land unless it was cultivable land within the statutory definition. Mere leasing for pasturage did not create ryot status or occupancy rights, and the defendants failed to prove that the lands were cultivable. As a result, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction under the Madras Estates Land Act. On the possession claim, the plaintiff was entitled to ejectment because the defendants held the lands under annual grazing leases, and damages, interest, and costs were allowed at the agreed rate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Mar 1916 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293098