Skip to content


Kalleti Munuswami Setti Vs. Muppirala Jagannadham - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1317 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1955Mad266
ActsTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 76; Tenancy Law; Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 - Sections 3
AppellantKalleti Munuswami Setti
RespondentMuppirala Jagannadham
Appellant AdvocateA. Kuppuswami, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader (Andhra) and ;M.B. Rama Sarma, Adv.
Disposition Petition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....the government would be entitled or not toclaim the rents and profits from that date fromthe petitioner, i am not called upon to discussin this petition. there is no such claim beforeme. but it is clear to me that the respondenthas no right whatever to claim the rents andprofits from the property as and from the saidriotified date. 3. the civil revision petition is allowed tothis extent and the order of the district munsifwill be modified in accordance with this judgmentno order as to costs.
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. This revision petition arises in proceedings for the passing of a final decree in pursuance of a preliminary decree in a suit for redemption filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The respondent applied to the Court below for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 609-8-4 as balance due for past mesne profits and fof determination of future mesne' profits. The only con-tention on behalf of the mortgagee who is the petitioner before me which merits any consideration is that the. respondent is not entitled to credit for the profits on the land from .7-9-1949, i.e., the date on which a notification was issued by the Government under Act 26 of 1948, taking over the estate, of which the suit mortgage concerns a part. The Contention was that as the respondent had no more interest in the property after the said date the petitioner was not liable to account for the profits of the property to the respondent on and from that date. This contention was not accepted by the learned District Munsif.

2. I think the District Munsif was wrong in not upholding this contention of the petitioner. It is true that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent may continue in spite of the notification under Act 26 of 1948, it is true that the mortgagee in possession will be liable to render an account in accordance with the terms of Section 76, Transfer of Property Act. The question, however, is whether the respondent-mortgagor will be entitled in such taking of accounts to the rents and profits of the property on and from 7-9-1949. In my opinion, he will not be entitled. Under Section 3s.(b) of the Madras Act 26 of 1948, on and from the notified date, the entire estate stands transferred to the Government and vests in them free of all encumbrances' The 'result is, on and from that date, the respondent has ceased to be the owner of the property. Once he has lost his title to the property, he cannot obviously be entitled to the rents and profits of that property. Whether the Government would be entitled or not toclaim the rents and profits from that date fromthe petitioner, I am not called upon to discussin this petition. There is no such claim beforeme. But it is clear to me that the respondenthas no right whatever to claim the rents andprofits from the property as and from the saidriotified date.

3. The civil revision petition is allowed tothis extent and the order of the District Munsifwill be modified in accordance with this judgmentNo order as to costs.


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