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

1943 Supreme(Mad) 259

HORWILL
Mummina Demudu – Appellant
Versus
Datla Papayyaraju Garu by his Muktyar Putrevu Ramalingaswami – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The plaintiff brought a suit, O.S. No. 177 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsiff of Yellamanchili, for ejectment against 13 defendants. The land from which the plaintiff seeks to eject the defendants is assumed for the purpose of argument to be an estate by virtue of Act XVIII of 1936. According to Section 6cf the Madras Estates Land Act as now amended, all tenants in occupation on the 30th June, 1934, would acquire occupancy rights. Various issues were framed; but there has been no finding except with regard to one of them. The District Munsiff dismissed the suit on the ground that according to the plaint, defendants 5 to 13 were in possession on that crucial date (30th June, 1934) and that therefore they had acquired occupancy rights and the plaintiff would not be entitled to possession.: The appellate Court held otherwise; because Section 8(5) contains an exception to the general rule enunciated in Section 6, sub-section 5 of Section 8 having been introduced by Act XVIII of 1936. It is to the effect that in the case where a landholder has obtained a final decree prior to the 1st November, 1933, by which it has been declared that the tenant did not hav




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