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

1968 Supreme(Mad) 158

RAMAPRASADA RAO
Annavi Moopan – Appellant
Versus
Munia Moopan – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Saravabhauman and T. R. Mani, for Petitioners.

ORDER :- Though this civil revision petition arises under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, it raises a very interesting and important question of law. It is very unfortunate that the defendant is not represented before me.

2. The plaintiffs as landlords filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 312-50, said to be due by the defendant towards rent, which, according to them, was payable by the defendant, in respect of the occupation of their lands. It is common ground that the defendant is the tenant of the petitioners. The petitioners purchased the property on 9-6-1963. The respondent-defendant was in occupation of the suit lands, long prior to the purchase by the plaintiffs, and he was also a tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. It is also common ground that, under Ex. B-2, fair rent was fixed for this tenement in the occupation of the defendant, in or about December 1956. The case of the plaintiffs is that after 1963 the defendant began to raise sugarcane crop on the leasehold land without their permission and concurrently did not oblige himself either under a contract or by any arrangement to pay increased rent, for using the lands for pu




















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