Skip to content


Robert Gordon Orr and ors. Vs. Chokalingam Pillai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ494
AppellantRobert Gordon Orr and ors.
RespondentChokalingam Pillai and ors.
Cases ReferredRajagopal v. Subbaraya I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....with his interest in the property in favour of the 1st defendant, nothing passed by the said sale, and the title of the 1st defendant was not affected thereby. the 1st defendant has mortgaged the lands, and the mortgagee has now obtained a decree for sale. under these circumstances, the 1st defendant professes that he has no further interest in the property and denies his liability to pay rent for faslis 1314 and 1315. he was the owner for these faslis, and is the person liable to pay rent for them, and pattas have been duly tendered to him by the plaintiffs. under these circumstances, we think that the plaintiffs are. entitled to recover against him, and must reverse the decree of the lower court and give judgment for the plaintiffs with costs throughout against the 1st and 2nd.....
Judgment:

1. The suit lands were transferred to the 1st defendant. Subsequently the landlord took summary proceedings against the former owner and brought them to sale under Section 38 of the Rent Recovery Act. All that passed under that sale was the interest of the former owner - Rajagopal v. Subbaraya I.L.R. (1883) M. 31 - but the former owner having previously parted with his interest in the property in favour of the 1st defendant, nothing passed by the said sale, and the title of the 1st defendant was not affected thereby. The 1st defendant has mortgaged the lands, and the mortgagee has now obtained a decree for sale. Under these circumstances, the 1st defendant professes that he has no further interest in the property and denies his liability to pay rent for faslis 1314 and 1315. He was the owner for these faslis, and is the person liable to pay rent for them, and pattas have been duly tendered to him by the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, we think that the plaintiffs are. entitled to recover against him, and must reverse the decree of the lower Court and give judgment for the plaintiffs with costs throughout against the 1st and 2nd defendants. As regards the 3rd defendant, the petition is not pressed and is dismissed with costs.


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