SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Ker) 697

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
N. M. Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
Naduvil Madom – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:A. Suresan, Advocate. For the Respondents:
N.M. Madhu, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. Some of the defendants in a suit for eviction are the appellants. Concurrent decision rendered by the courts below holding that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit property, a building with arrears of rent and also the sum fixed due, towards use and occupation of the building after termination of the tenancy, is challenged in the appeal.

2. Admittedly, the building is owned by the plaintiff and it was let out under a tenancy arrangement, fixing a monthly rent of Rs.15/- per month by a registered deed in 1951, in favour of the predecessor of the defendants. Subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs.40/- per month. Plaintiff is a Hindu religious institution, governed by the provisions covered by Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 15 of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The Cochin Devaswom Board constituted under the above Act, admittedly, has a supervisory regulatory control over the affairs of the institution in the creation of mortgages, charges, alienation etc. over its properties, as under Section 86 of the Act. The defendant in the suit had resisted the eviction admitting the tenancy arrangement over the building




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top