AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 109 words
1.
We do not think the provisions of Act VIII of 1865 require the exchange of a second muchilika, and a second patta between the ryot and the
farmer of land under the Zamindar, when for the same fasli a patta and a muchilika have already been exchanged between the ryot and the
zamindar. This is the only ground argued. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
2.
The same judgment follows in S.A. No. 1573 of 1910 presented from the decree of the District Court of Ganjam in A.S. No. 1 of 09 preferred
against the decree of the District Munsif of Sompettah in O.S. No. 127 of 08.