Skip to content


P. Ratnasabapathi Pillai, Chairman, Municipal Council Vs. Vaithilinga Pandaram, Adhinakarthur of Velakuruchi Matam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1896)6MLJ317
AppellantP. Ratnasabapathi Pillai, Chairman, Municipal Council
RespondentVaithilinga Pandaram, Adhinakarthur of Velakuruchi Matam
Excerpt:
- - 2. the erection of toll gates or of bars for the collection of tolls is one of the duties imposed on municipalities by the district municipalities act (section 92), and the plaintiff's own case is that the act complained of was done by the municipality through their chairman. the 'finding of the subordinate judge that the act on which the plaintiff grounds his cause of action was not an act done under the district municipalities act is therefore in our opinion clearly erroneous in law, and this being so, the suit was clearly barred under section 261 of madras act iv of 1884, it not having been brought until nearly 16 months had elapsed from the date on which the defendants had taken possession......261 of madras act iv of 1884, it not having been brought until nearly 16 months had elapsed from the date on which the defendants had taken possession.3. we must allow the appeal, and reversing the subordinate judge's decree, we restore the decree of the district munsiff dismissing the suit. appellant (defendant) will receive his costs.
Judgment:

1. The act done was the erection of a toll gate on a vacant site.

2. The erection of toll gates or of bars for the collection of tolls is one of the duties imposed on Municipalities by the District Municipalities Act (Section 92), and the plaintiff's own case is that the act complained of was done by the Municipality through their Chairman. The 'finding of the Subordinate Judge that the act on which the plaintiff grounds his cause of action was not an act done under the District Municipalities Act is therefore in our opinion clearly erroneous in law, and this being so, the suit was clearly barred under Section 261 of Madras Act IV of 1884, it not having been brought until nearly 16 months had elapsed from the date on which the defendants had taken possession.

3. We must allow the Appeal, and reversing the Subordinate Judge's decree, we restore the decree of the District Munsiff dismissing the suit. Appellant (defendant) will receive his costs.


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