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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 553

SRINIVASAN
Boorasamy Padayachi – Appellant
Versus
Muthukumara Mudaliar and another – Respondent


Advocates:
R. Balasubramanian for S.Ashok Kumar, for Petitioner. D. Peter Francis, for Respondent.

Judgment :

The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1646 of 1989 is the tenant with respect to the land owned by the respondent in that civil revision petition of an extent of 10.17 acres in S.Nos.4/1, 4/2 and 148/2, Variyangaval village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. The landlord is the petitioner in C.R.P. No.2199 of 1993 and the tenant is the respondent therein. The landlord is the applicant in Contempt Application No.33 5 of 1993. The respondents there are: (1) Mr.B.Vittal, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer and (2) the tenant. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the parties as landlord, tenant and the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.)

2. The landlord filed P.No.808 of 1988 on the file of the Revenue Court, Lalgudi, for eviction of the tenant, under Sec.3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955). He had therein that the tenant agreed to pay one-half of the yield every year and he estimated that 25 bags would be the yield every year. Thus, he claimed a share of 12 1/2 bags per year. According to the. petition, the rent was not paid for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. He claimed a total of 25 bags and working out at the rate of























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