Skip to content


Ayyapputty Vs. Kunhi Raman and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1945)1MLJ269
AppellantAyyapputty
RespondentKunhi Raman and ors.
Cases Referred and Krishndrao v. Mungara Sanyasi
Excerpt:
- .....the kanomdar that the plaintiff's tarwad had lost its title to the property by reason of a court auction sale in o.s. no. 218 of 1905. the sale certificate was also filed in proof of this allegation about the loss of title. the district munsiff and the district judge negatived the plea on the ground that though there was this sale certificate, it was not proved by the second defendant that the auction purchaser, choyi, took delivery of the properties. in other words, they held that notwithstanding the court auction purchase, the tenancy between the plaintiff's tarwad and the defendant continued and that it was not put an end to merely by reason of the court sale.2. it is not enough for the kanomdar, who is in the position of a lessee and a mortgagee to show that a third party had.....
Judgment:

Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.

1. This second appeal is by the second defendant, who is the holder of a kanom right. The suit was for redemption of the kanom and it was decreed by the District Munsiff, who overruled the plea of the kanomdar that the plaintiff's tarwad had lost its title to the property by reason of a Court auction sale in O.S. No. 218 of 1905. The sale certificate was also filed in proof of this allegation about the loss of title. The District Munsiff and the District Judge negatived the plea on the ground that though there was this sale certificate, it was not proved by the second defendant that the auction purchaser, Choyi, took delivery of the properties. In other words, they held that notwithstanding the Court auction purchase, the tenancy between the plaintiff's tarwad and the defendant continued and that it was not put an end to merely by reason of the Court sale.

2. It is not enough for the kanomdar, who is in the position of a lessee and a mortgagee to show that a third party had become the purchaser of the plaintiff's interest in the property. He must go further and prove that as the result of this purchase the tenancy has become determined, that is, there was an eviction of him by title paramount or an equivalent of some such eviction and that he has attorned to the holder of the title paramount. If he does not prove these facts, he still continues in possession under the original tenancy arrangement which is not determined automatically by the Court sale. The bar imposed by Section 116 operates during the continuance of the tenancy and until there is eviction by superior title or the tenant surrenders possession. The case appears to me to be governed by the principles laid down in Devatraju v. Mohamed Jaffer Sahib (1911) I.L.R. 36 Mad. 53, and Krishndrao v. Mungara Sanyasi (1931) 62 M.L.J. 3I3 : I.L.R. 1955 Mad. 601.

3. The decision of the lower Courts is correct. The second appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs as the respondents do not appear. No leave.


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