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

1977 Supreme(Mad) 404

N.S.RAMASWAMI
Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
K. Madurai Achari and another – Respondent


Advocates:
Ramanujam, for Appellant.
Raj and Raj, for Respondent.

JUDGMENT. — The defendant in the two suits (O.S. Nos. 608 and 663 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Chingleput) has preferred these two second appeals. The question in both the cases is whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) (Act XL of 1971), hereinafter referred to as the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act, and the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act (XXXVIII of 1961) hereinafter referred to as the Kudiruppu Protection Act, and whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits.

2. One Rajaram Naidu and others owned certain lands extending 2.89 acres of which the suit site (3 cents) is part. The defendant became a tenant of the suit site under the above owners as evidenced by Exhibit A-7 dated 20th March, 1973, which says that he had become tenant even two years prior to the date of the document. It is now common ground that he so became tenant in or about March, 1971. He put up a superstructure and has been enjoying the same. One Balasubramaniam purchased the land (including the suit site) under Exhibit A-3 dated 4th December, 1973. He sold half of the






























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