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

1961 Supreme(Mad) 48

SRINIVASAN
Mohanambal Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Selvanayaki Ammal – Respondent


Advocates:
N. Gopalakrishnan, for Petitioner.
K. Srinivasan and K. Shanmugham, for Respondent.

Order.

The petitioner was the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 220 of 1953, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, an application under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act ; and this application appears to have been dragged on till 1958, by reason of certain proceedings between the same parties in relation to the tenancy in the City Civil Court, Madras. Apparently the petitioner-tenant’s contention in that City Civil Court action failed. Thereafter, this application under section 41 was taken up for disposal. It would appear that during the pendency of this application a petition was filed by the tenant-defendant for valuing the superstructure under the relevant provisions of the City Tenants’ Protection Act. This was done by the appointment of a Commissioner, and on the 19th of August, 1958, the third Judge of Court of Small Causes, Madras, made an order in these terms:-

“The Petition is accordingly allowed and the value of the superstructure is fixed at Rs. 900. The plaintiff-respondent is granted three months’ time to pay this amount to the petitioner-defendant.”

The application itself came up for final disposal only on the 21st day of September, 1959, w








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