Skip to content


Chaladom Tholan and anr. Vs. Kakkath Kunhambu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad669
AppellantChaladom Tholan and anr.
RespondentKakkath Kunhambu
Cases ReferredElwes v. Briggs Gas Coy.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 43--former suit for injunction to restrain defendants from removing shells stored on certain land--dismissal as not maintainable--subsequent conversion by defendants of the shells--suit for their value--maintainability--agricultural tenants---right to dig shells. - - 508. whether the tenant was or was not justified in digging up shells for cultivating the land properly and in a husband-like manner, the property in the shells is not in him, but in the landlord, or rather the plaintiff, the respondent, the assignee of the landlord tucker v......purposes by the tenants. it is found that the agricultural tenants dug up a large quantity of shells and converted them to their own use. but they have not alleged or proved any local custom entitling them to do so tucker v. linger l.r. 8 a.c. 508. whether the tenant was or was not justified in digging up shells for cultivating the land properly and in a husband-like manner, the property in the shells is not in him, but in the landlord, or rather the plaintiff, the respondent, the assignee of the landlord tucker v. linger l.r. 8 a.c. 508; elwes v. briggs gas coy. 33 ch. d. 562. in the absence of a local custom the defendants had not a right to convert the shells, which they dug up, to their own use. section 43, civil procedure code, is in our opinion no bar to any portion of the.....
Judgment:

1. The petitioners are agricultural tenants of some lands for paddy cultivation and the respondent is a subsequent lessee under the landlord of the right to dig up and take shells from the holding without causing any detriment to the use of the land for agricultural purposes by the tenants. It is found that the agricultural tenants dug up a large quantity of shells and converted them to their own use. But they have not alleged or proved any local custom entitling them to do so Tucker v. Linger L.R. 8 A.C. 508. Whether the tenant was or was not justified in digging up shells for cultivating the land properly and in a husband-like manner, the property in the shells is not in him, but in the landlord, or rather the plaintiff, the respondent, the assignee of the landlord Tucker v. Linger L.R. 8 A.C. 508; Elwes v. Briggs Gas Coy. 33 Ch. D. 562. In the absence of a local custom the defendants had not a right to convert the shells, which they dug up, to their own use. Section 43, Civil Procedure Code, is in our opinion no bar to any portion of the claim made in this suit, for it is admitted that even such portion was on the holding where it was stored up at the date of the former suit for injunction, but was removed and converted by the defendants to their own use only subsequent to the former suit.

2. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.


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