AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 128 words
King, J.—It is a plausible argument that as ryotwari pattadars are entitled to the benefits of this Act, no matter how much land revenue they
pay, a jenmi who is also a ryotwari pattadar and who in the former capacity pays less than Rs. 500 should also be so entitled. But there are no
words in the proviso restricting the land revenue payable by a jenmi to the revenue payable only on the land so held by him and taking the clause in
its plain meaning we have here a jenmi whose total payments to Government on account of land revenue exceed Rs. 500. I cannot therefore hold
that the Court below have wrongly construed the proviso. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of respondent 2.