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

1949 Supreme(Mad) 448

SATYANARAYANA RAO
Arumugha Konar – Appellant
Versus
Sanku Muthammal – Respondent


Advocates:
D.A. Krishna Variar for Appellant.
C.K. Viswanatha Aiyar and S.R. Subramania Aiyar for Respondent.

Judgment

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










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