Skip to content


Papathi Ammal and ors. Vs. Veeramalai Vanniar (Dead) by Lrs. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1975)3SCC475
AppellantPapathi Ammal and ors.
RespondentVeeramalai Vanniar (Dead) by Lrs. and ors.
Excerpt:
- administrative action: [s.b. sinha, l.s. panta & b. sudershan reddy,jj] interpretation of regulation/control/restraint held, the word regulation in some quarters is considered to be unruly horse. the word control is an unfortunate word of such wide and ambiguous import that it has been taken to mean something weaker than restraint, something equivalent to regulation. but regulatory provisions are required to be applied having regard to the nature, textual context and situational context of each statute and case concerned. the power to regulate may include the power to grant or refuse to grant the licence or to require taking out a licence and may also include the power to tax or exempt from taxation. it implied a power to prescribe and enforce all such proper and reasonable rules and..........settlement to the defendant-appellants within two months from today. so far as the one acre of land comprised in item no. 9 is concerned, possession would be handed over to the defendants-appellants by the end of july 1974. in case the parties are not agreed with regard to the specific portion of one acre out of item no. 9, the trial court, in execution proceedings, can get that portion demarcated after appointing a local commissioner and then handover possession. in case possession is not handed over within the agreed period, the defendants-appellants would be entitled to mesne profits in respect of one acre of land out of item no. 9 from august 1, 1974 and, in respect of the other items, from the end of two months from today. the balance of the amount in deposit after the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jaganmohan Reddy, J.

1. learned Counsel for the parties have reported that the parties have entered into settlement. It has been agreed that the plaintiff-respondents would be entitled, out of the lands in dispute, to the lands comprised in items Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and land measuring 2.71 acres out of 3.71 acres comprised in item No 9, of the properties set out in the Schedule to the plaint in O.S. No. 29 of 1960. The plaintiff respondents would deliver possession of one acre of land out of item No. 9 In addition to that the plaintiff-respondents would handover possession of the lands comprised in items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10 to the defendants-appellants. Out of the amount deposited by the plaintiff-respondents in the trial court, the defendants-appellants would be entitled to withdraw Rs. 4,500/-. No party would have any claim for mesne profits against the other till the date of this order. The plaintiff respondents would handover possession of the land which is now being given under this settlement to the defendant-appellants within two months from today. So far as the one acre of land comprised in item No. 9 is concerned, possession would be handed over to the defendants-appellants by the end of July 1974. In case the parties are not agreed with regard to the specific portion of one acre out of item No. 9, the trial Court, in execution proceedings, can get that portion demarcated after appointing a local Commissioner and then handover possession. In case possession is not handed over within the agreed period, the defendants-appellants would be entitled to mesne profits in respect of one acre of land out of item No. 9 from August 1, 1974 and, in respect of the other items, from the end of two months from today. The balance of the amount in deposit after the appellants have withdrawn Rs. 4,500 can be withdrawn by the plaintiff-respondents. Parties will bear their own costs throughout. There will be a decree accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //