Skip to content


Kamalattanni and anr. Vs. Renga Aiyangar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1897)7MLJ310
AppellantKamalattanni and anr.
RespondentRenga Aiyangar and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....then came to the conclusion that the case was one that should be determined summarily. he then made an order rejecting the petition for possession and referr ing the petitioners to a regular suit.3. it appears to us that the only enquiry necessary to be made under section 335 is with reference to the question whether a summary order for possession should be made. the sub judge has made enquiry and come to the conclusion that this was not such a case. we agree with the courts below that the enquiry in this case was sufficient, and there can be no doubt that the order passed was one passed against the petittisners, for it rejected their application.4. it therefore, fell within article 11 of the 2nd schedule of the limitation act, and the suit was admittedly under that article5. we.....
Judgment:

1. The application was made under Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the removal of the obstruction caused by the counter-petitioner and to put petitioner in possession. That section contemplates that on the complaint the Court shall enquire into the matter and pass such order as it thinks fit.

2. In the case before us, the Sub Judge considered the documents produced and heard the arguments on both sides and then came to the conclusion that the case was one that should be determined summarily. He then made an order rejecting the petition for possession and referr ing the petitioners to a regular suit.

3. It appears to us that the only enquiry necessary to be made under Section 335 is with reference to the question whether a summary order for possession should be made. The Sub Judge has made enquiry and come to the conclusion that this was not such a case. We agree with the Courts below that the enquiry in this case was sufficient, and there can be no doubt that the order passed was one passed against the petittisners, for it rejected their application.

4. It therefore, fell within Article 11 of the 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act, and the suit was admittedly under that Article

5. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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