Skip to content


Pichuvayyan Vs. Vilakudiyan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1897)7MLJ196
AppellantPichuvayyan
RespondentVilakudiyan
Cases Referred and Palamalai Padayachi v. Shanmuga Asari I.L.
Excerpt:
- 1. blacksmiths' and carpenters' nams are within the purview of regulation vi of 1831 (letter from sadar adalat to government, dated 30th june 1852, and palamalai padayachi v. shanmuga asari i.l.r(1894) . m. 302. the plaintiff did not allege in his plaint a title by adverse possession for over 12 years, nor was there any issue on such plea. moreover as the plaintiff could have sued only under regulation vi of 1831 in a eevenue court, but not in a civil court for recovery of the inam land and as the indian limitation act does not prescribe any period of limitation for suits under the regulation, the plaintiff could not under section 28 of the act acquire a title by prescription.2. the second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. Blacksmiths' and carpenters' nams are within the purview of Regulation VI of 1831 (Letter from Sadar Adalat to Government, dated 30th June 1852, and Palamalai Padayachi v. Shanmuga Asari I.L.R(1894) . M. 302. The plaintiff did not allege in his plaint a title by adverse possession for over 12 years, nor was there any issue on such plea. Moreover as the plaintiff could have sued only under Regulation VI of 1831 in a Eevenue Court, but not in a Civil Court for recovery of the inam land and as the Indian Limitation Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for suits under the Regulation, the plaintiff could not under Section 28 of the Act acquire a title by prescription.

2. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.


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