Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Venkataramana Rao, J.
Perumal Mooppan and Anr.
Versus
Subramania Mudaliar
Decided On : 13.10.1938
Section 41 - Transfer of Property Act - Ostensible owner and consent - The court dismissed the appeal as it found no evidence of tacit consent for the ostensible ownership under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant argued for relief under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, claiming that the plaintiff should have been non-suited.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the second appeal, stating that there was no evidence of tacit consent for the ostensible ownership under Section 41.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and the requirement of showing ostensible ownership with consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was no evidence of tacit consent for the ostensible ownership, as required under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with costs, and leave to appeal was refused.
Venkataramana Rao, J.
1. The only point urged by Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar is that his clients should have been given relief under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act by non-suiting the plaintiff. I do not think this contention is tenable. Under Section 41 it must be shown that the first defendant was the ostensible owner with the consent express or implied of the person interested in the property. There is no evidence of tacit consent. The mere fact that an entry was made in the Survey Register cannot be relied on as such consent. I therefore dismiss the second appeal with costs.
2. Leave to appeal refused.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
