Skip to content


Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Yerra Reddi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1893)ILR16Mad323
AppellantRajah of Venkatagiri
RespondentYerra Reddi
Excerpt:
rent recovery act (madras) - act viii of 1865, section 49 - suit for restoration of specific moveable property. - - 3. the suit must, therefore, fail;.....as the present will lie under section 49.2. it might have been open to the plaintiff to prefer a petition under section 32 for the release of the property, but in that case there would be no appeal.3. the suit must, therefore, fail; but as this point was not taken before the district judge, and on the facts found the conduct of the defendants has not been free from blame, we shall not award costs in their favour.4. the decree of the district court must be reversed and the suit dismissed, each party bearing his own costs throughout
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the suit is not sustainable under Section 49 of the Rent Recovery Act. The prayer of the plaint is not for damages, but for the release and restoration of specific moveable property, together with some other subsidiary relief. The Revenue Court in which the suit was instituted is one of special and limited jurisdiction, and no such suit as the present will lie under Section 49.

2. It might have been open to the plaintiff to prefer a petition under Section 32 for the release of the property, but in that case there would be no appeal.

3. The suit must, therefore, fail; but as this point was not taken before the District Judge, and on the facts found the conduct of the defendants has not been free from blame, we shall not award costs in their favour.

4. The decree of the District Court must be reversed and the suit dismissed, each party bearing his own costs throughout


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