Skip to content


Muthirulandi Poosari and anr. Vs. Muthandi Poosari and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1919)36MLJ356
AppellantMuthirulandi Poosari and anr.
RespondentMuthandi Poosari and ors.
Cases ReferredIn Krishnamma v. Achayya I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - 1. assuming that in this case the boundary was disputed and the dispute was the subject of an order by the survey officer under section 11 of madras act iv of 1897, we think that order, if not reviewed by the appellate authority or questioned by suit as provided in the section was conclusive as to the rights of the parties, and none the less so because the unsuccessful party who was in possession at the date of the order was not subsequently ousted from possession......does not appear to have been any order under section 25 of the boundaries act of 1860, which corresponds to section 11 and 12 of the present act. the suit had been treated in the district court as a suit governed by article 16 to schedule ii of the limitation act of 1871 'to set aside any act of an officer of government in his official capacity, not herein otherwise expressly provided for.' the official' act appears to have been the actual demarcation of the land by fixing the boundary stones. if there was an order in that case under section 25 of the act of 1860, we think the decision was wrong.
Judgment:

1. Assuming that in this case the boundary was disputed and the dispute was the subject of an order by the Survey Officer under Section 11 of Madras Act IV of 1897, we think that order, if not reviewed by the appellate authority or questioned by suit as provided in the section was conclusive as to the rights of the parties, and none the less so because the unsuccessful party who was in possession at the date of the order was not subsequently ousted from possession. In Krishnamma v. Achayya I.L.R. (1879) Mad. 306, there does not appear to have been any order under Section 25 of the Boundaries Act of 1860, which corresponds to Section 11 and 12 of the present act. The suit had been treated in the District Court as a suit governed by Article 16 to Schedule II of the Limitation Act of 1871 'to set aside any act of an officer of Government in his official capacity, not herein otherwise expressly provided for.' The official' act appears to have been the actual demarcation of the land by fixing the boundary stones. If there was an order in that case under Section 25 of the Act of 1860, we think the decision was wrong.


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