KRISHNA MURARI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
K. Chinnammal (dead) Thr. Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
L. R. Eknath – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) in Civil Revision Petition (NPD) (MD) No. 271 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Revision Petition”), passed by a learned Single Bench of the Madras High Court Bench at Madurai (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”). The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellants taking recourse to Article 227 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”).
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
4. The respondent No.1 had filed T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015 before the Revenue Court, Madurai (hereinafter referred to as the “Revenue Court”), on 08.12.2014, against the appellants seeking their eviction on account of not having paid the lease rent for Fasli 1419 to Fasli 1424 (corresponding to the years 2009 to 2014) @ 10½ bags of paddy each weighing 65kgs.
5. On 04.02.2019 in I.A. No. 29 of 2015 in T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015, the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, ordered the appellants to pay lease rent of 31½ bags of paddy
Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand
Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte
Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re
Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.
G Ponniah Thevar v. Nellayam Perumal Pillai
Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.