Skip to content


Vama Dava Desikar Vs. Murugesa Mudali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR29Mad75
AppellantVama Dava Desikar
RespondentMurugesa Mudali
Cases ReferredRamachandra v. Narayansami I.L.R. Mad.
Excerpt:
rent recovery act (madras) viii of 1865 - limitation for suits under section 40--right of attachment when rent is payable in kind--validity of attachment for arrears due under patta altered subsequently. - - the appeals however fail on other ground......40 the word used is 'month.' but that section must be read with section 51 which lays down that summary suits under the act must be presented within 30 days. we think that the reasonable construction is to hold that the term month in section 40 whs intended to he an equivalent to the period 'of 30 days as provided for in respect of all summary suits in section 51, it was next urged for the appellant that the attachment should be upheld to the extent of the rent actually in arrear in accordance with the puttas now upheld. this contention cannot be accepted. under the recent full bench ruling the appellant has to tender a patta according to the final decision before he can proceed to enforce the terms of the tenancy. therefore the ruling in ramachandra v. narayansami i.l.r. mad. 229.....
Judgment:

1. District Judge is in error in holding that the attachment proceedings cannot be taken where the rent is payable in kind. The appeals however fail on other ground. We agree with the District Judge in holding that an appeal by way of a summary suit presented against an attachment under Section 40 of the Kent Recovery Act (Act VIII of 1885) is within time if presented within 30 days. No doubt in Section 40 the word used is 'month.' But that section must be read with Section 51 which lays down that summary suits under the Act must be presented within 30 days. We think that the reasonable construction is to hold that the term month in Section 40 WHS intended to he an equivalent to the period 'of 30 days as provided for in respect of all summary suits in Section 51, It was next urged for the appellant that the attachment should be upheld to the extent of the rent actually in arrear in accordance with the puttas now upheld. This contention cannot be accepted. Under the recent Full Bench ruling the appellant has to tender a patta according to the final decision before he can proceed to enforce the terms of the tenancy. Therefore the ruling in Ramachandra v. Narayansami I.L.R. Mad. 229 (assuming it has not been overruled by the Full Bench ruling referred to) cannot be held to apply. We must accordingly dismiss these second appeals with costs.


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