Skip to content


Muthian Chetty and ors. Vs. Chinnathambi Ambalagaran and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1906)16MLJ6
AppellantMuthian Chetty and ors.
RespondentChinnathambi Ambalagaran and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....their rents either to the plaintiffs jointly or separately. if the plaintiffs have been receiving rents jointly, they would be entitled to tender the pattas as claimed. if, on the other hand, the defendants, have been as alleged before us, paying only a moiety of their rent to the first plaintiff and the other moiety to the other plaintiffs, then they are entitled to demand a separate patta from the first plaintiff.3. it is admitted on both sides that rents were being paid during those years though no pattas or muchilikas have been produced and no evidence has been taken in the case.4. we, accordingly, set aside the decrees of the courts below and direct the court of first instance to replace the suit on its file and pass a fresh decree after deciding all the questions raised by the.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiffs claim under two instruments of mortgage executed by the Zamindar in 1885. The first plaintiff is the mortgagee of an undivided moiety of the village now in suit. The plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 are the mortgagees of the other undivided moiety. They tender a patta in their joint names to the defendants who are admittedly tenants holding lands in the village. It is also alleged in the plaint that the tenants we are paying rent to the plaintiffs jointly.

2. The question for decision is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to tender this joint patta. Prom 1885 till the date of suit the tenants in the village must have been paying their rents either to the plaintiffs jointly or separately. If the plaintiffs have been receiving rents jointly, they would be entitled to tender the pattas as claimed. If, on the other hand, the defendants, have been as alleged before us, paying only a moiety of their rent to the first plaintiff and the other moiety to the other plaintiffs, then they are entitled to demand a separate patta from the first plaintiff.

3. It is admitted on both sides that rents were being paid during those years though no pattas or muchilikas have been produced and no evidence has been taken in the case.

4. We, accordingly, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and direct the Court of first instance to replace the suit on its file and pass a fresh decree after deciding all the questions raised by the issues with reference to the above observations. Costs will be provided for in the revised decree.


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