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

1922 Supreme(Mad) 300

SPENCER
V. Parthasarathy Aiyangar And – Appellant
Versus
Doraiswami Naicker – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Spencer, J.

1. The question referred to us is whether a tenant in occupation of trust lands belonging to a temple or. mosque can enforce a compulsory sale under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and require the temple or mosque to deliver the land to him on a valuation to be made by the court.

2. There is no difficulty to my mind in including the trustees of temples mosques and other religious endowments within the definition of "landlord" in Section 2 of Madras Act No. 111 of 1922 as they certainly are persons entitled to collect the rent of the land on behalf of another person. A greater difficulty arises when we come to consider Section 9. This section pr vides for the compulsory sale by a landlord of land in the possession of atenant in the City of Madras from which the tenant "sough to be ejected in a suit instituted under the Presidency Small land as the interest of the landlord in the land and all other-interests which he can convey under any power What are the interests which he can convey under any power? If they sgmfy easements and other subsidiary interests, it would have been easy for the Act to so describe them. If the title to the land is inten


































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