Skip to content


Sangila Vs. Maruthamuthu Aud ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ131
AppellantSangila
RespondentMaruthamuthu Aud ors.
Excerpt:
- 1. this is a lease for a term of 12 months only and under section 111, transfer of property act, was determined at the expiry of the term. i', is not suggested that the tenancy was renewed under section 116 of the act; and we think the suit is barred under article 139 of the 2nd schedule of the limitation act of 1877. the case to which the district judge refers was a case of tenancy from year to year determinable by notice.2. we reverse the decree of the district judge and restore that of the district munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate court.
Judgment:

1. This is a lease for a term of 12 months only and under Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, was determined at the expiry of the term. I', is not suggested that the tenancy was renewed under Section 116 of the Act; and we think the suit is barred under Article 139 of the 2nd schedule of the Limitation Act of 1877. The case to which the District Judge refers was a case of tenancy from year to year determinable by notice.

2. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court.


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