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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 88

VENKATARAMANA RAO
Poovankulathil Thottam Puthiya Purayil Abdullah – Appellant
Versus
Kakkat Valappil Moidin Kutty – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment to recover possession of the suit land with arrears of rent and future profits from defendant 1 who was in occupation thereof. Defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded in the suit as assignees of defendant 1. The suit property admittedly belonged to a devaswom known as Puthankottan Devaswam. The uraima right was held, according to the findings of both the lower Courts, by four uralans who are the karnavans for the time being of four different tarwads, namely Neelangapurath, Edavan Putta-lath, Erambala and Thiyancheri Kaloth. Defendant 1 occupied the land under a marupat dated 24th June 1912, Ex. A, granted by the uralans Neelangapurath Appa alias Chidan Nambiar and Edavan Puthalath Krishnan Nambiar, the then karnavans of their respective tarwads. It was to run for a period of 12 years and at the end of the term, defendant 1 undertook to surrender possession on payment to him of the kuzhikur value. Four years thereafter the same two uralans executed a kanom kuzhikanom demise in favour of the plaintiff under a deed dated 5th July 1916, Ex. B, for a period of 16 years from the said date with power to recover













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