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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 262

WADSWORTH
Tallapragada Achutharamayya – Appellant
Versus
Ayyagari Soorappayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Wadsworth, J.

1. These appeals arise out of a decision of the survey officer wider the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. Second Appeal No. 537 relates to a suit in which the appellant was the plaintiff and sued for possession on the basis of a favourable decision of the survey officers; whereas S.A. No. 538 relates to O.S. No. 154 in which the respondent who was an unsuccessful claimant before the survey officer sued to set aside the survey officers decision. The decision of the survey officer in appeal is contained in Ex. F, dated 31st October, 1924. According to the appellant the relevant survey notification is Ex. S, dated 22nd November, 1926. But the learned Subordinate Judge has accepted the respondents contention that limitation began to run only from a subsequent survey notification, Ex. X, dated 21st April, 1931. If this contention is wrong, the respondents suit O.S. No. 154 is clearly time barred with reference to the terms of Section 14 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. The learned Subordinate Judge gives no reasons for holding that the notification with which we are concerned is Ex. X and not Ex. Section The appellant adduced in evidence his own application









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