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

1969 Supreme(Mad) 379

K.VEERASWAMI, S.MAHARAJAN
Mayilsami Gounder – Appellant
Versus
Rammoorthi Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
S. Mohan, for Petitioner.
S. Palaniswamy and R. Ramamoorthi, for Respondents.

Veeraswami, C.J.- This revision petition comes before us on a reference made by one of us. The petitioner is the tenant who applied for restoration of possession on an eviction order being reversed, in execution of which, he had been deprived of possession, but, the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the application on the ground of limitation.

The respondent applied for eviction in February, 1960 which was ordered. Since the tenant failed to deposit the rent within the time allowed, the order was put to execution and the landlord entered upon possession in July, 1960. Eventually the revision petition directed against the order of eviction was allowed by this Court on the ground that the respondent should have impleaded the newly inducted tenant. On the strength of this order of reversion, the tenant, who is the petitioner before us, applied for restitution. But the application was dismissed on the ground that it was out of time under the provisions of section 4 (5) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The petition under consideration is to revise that order.

When the petition came before one of us, it was felt that there was no jurisdiction vested in the Revenue








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