Skip to content


Bankala Vittil Usman Koya and anr. Vs. Chidriamokkausa Akoth and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1905)15MLJ368
AppellantBankala Vittil Usman Koya and anr.
RespondentChidriamokkausa Akoth and anr.
Excerpt:
- - the lower courts were of opinion that on the facts, the 1st defendant had established a good defence to the plaintiff's suit.1. the 1st plaintiff granted to the 1st defendant a lease of certain land for 6 years. on the expiration of the six years the plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of possession of the land, rent and mesne profits. 2. the 1st defendant set up the defence that the land was not the property of the 1st plaintiff but the property of government and that in 1893 he had accepted a putta from government comprising the land in question. the lower courts were of opinion that on the facts, the 1st defendant had established a good defence to the plaintiff's suit. the ordinary rule of course is that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord who let him into possession.3. mr. rosario on behalf of the 1st defendant did not attempt to support the judgment of the lower appellate.....
Judgment:

1. The 1st plaintiff granted to the 1st defendant a lease of certain land for 6 years. On the expiration of the six years the plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of possession of the land, rent and mesne profits.

2. The 1st defendant set up the defence that the land was not the property of the 1st plaintiff but the property of Government and that in 1893 he had accepted a putta from Government comprising the land in question. The Lower Courts were of opinion that on the facts, the 1st defendant had established a good defence to the plaintiff's suit. The ordinary rule of course is that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord who let him into possession.

3. Mr. Rosario on behalf of the 1st defendant did not attempt to support the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court on the ground taken by the District Judge. But his argument was that admitting the 1st plaintiff's title to the property in 1891 that title was determined in 1893.

4. The 1st defendant entered into possession under the lease granted to him by the 1st plaintiff in 1891 and during the period of his tenancy nothing occurred which could be treated by the party having (as we assume) the title paramount which amounted to an ouster of the 1st defendant 8o as to operate as a determination of the lessor's right as they stood at the date of the lease by him to the 1st defendant.

5. Even apart from the rights of the 1st plaintiff under the covenant to recover possession at the expiry of the term of the lease, the 1st defendant was bound to surrender at the expiry of the term. We must set aside the decrees of both the Lower Courts and give the 1st plaintiff a decree for possession with mesne profits from date of plaint (to be ascertained in execution) till delivery of possession or the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. The plaintiffs are entitled to costs throughout.


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