Skip to content


Thanikachella and anr. Vs. Shudachella - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad258
AppellantThanikachella and anr.
RespondentShudachella
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, schedule ii, articles 99, 132--payment of entire rent by a co-tenant--suit for contribution. - 1. the case quoted by the subordinate judge was under the revenue recovery act, not under act viii of 1865.2. the suit, however, is not for rent, but for contribution on account of a payment made by plaintiff in defendants' interest. there is no provision of law making such a claim a charge upon immoveable property. article 99 of the limitation act applies.3. the decree of the subordinate judge must be reversed and that of the district munsif restored. the appellants are entitled to their costs in this and in the lower appellate court.
Judgment:

1. The case quoted by the Subordinate Judge was under the Revenue Recovery Act, not under Act VIII of 1865.

2. The suit, however, is not for rent, but for contribution on account of a payment made by plaintiff in defendants' interest. There is no provision of law making such a claim a charge upon immoveable property. Article 99 of the Limitation Act applies.

3. The decree of the Subordinate Judge must be reversed and that of the District Munsif restored. The appellants are entitled to their costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.


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