Skip to content


Blake Vs. Savundarathammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ163
AppellantBlake
RespondentSavundarathammal and ors.
Cases ReferredAppa Pillai v. Gopalasami Reddi (decision of
Excerpt:
- 1. a kasavargam tenant has, according to wilson (see glossary), a proprietary right to his house and the sudder court ruled in appa pillai v. gopalasami reddi (decision of 1860, page 41) that when ejected the kasavargam tenant was entitled to compensation for his buildings. the munsif found this was a recognised principle and there was no denial that it was an incident of kasavargam tenancy. the judge agreed with the munsif; and as the decision is supported by express authority of old date, we have no doubt that it is correct in law. the amount granted as compensation is not a question of law. the second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
Judgment:

1. A Kasavargam tenant has, according to Wilson (see Glossary), a proprietary right to his house and the Sudder Court ruled in Appa Pillai v. Gopalasami Reddi (decision of 1860, page 41) that when ejected the Kasavargam tenant was entitled to compensation for his buildings. The Munsif found this was a recognised principle and there was no denial that it was an incident of Kasavargam tenancy. The Judge agreed with the Munsif; and as the decision is supported by express authority of old date, we have no doubt that it is correct in law. The amount granted as compensation is not a question of law. The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.


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