SATYANARAYANA RAO
Arumugha Konar – Appellant
Versus
Sanku Muthammal – Respondent
These two appeals arise out of a suit, O. S. No. 437 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat instituted by a landlord to evict a tenant. The tenant came into possession under an earlier lease, but the lease which was concerned in the suit was Exhibit P-1, dated 17th December, 1934. The contention of the tenant was that he was entitled to purchase the landlord’s right in the kudiyiruppu under section 33 of the Malabar Tenancy Act (XIV of 1930) and he applied under that section for the necessary relief. The landlord resisted this application on the ground that for three years from 1943 to 1946, the date of the suit, there was no residential building at all on the site though there was one prior to 1943 and that therefore section 33 had no application. The learned District Munsif found as a fact that there was no house on the site for three years prior to the date of the institution of the suit, and this finding was accepted also by the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned District Munsif on a construction of the definition of kudiyiruppu in the Malabar Tenancy Act held that as there was no building and as the site in dispute was a vacant site the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.