Skip to content


Prati Appala Raju Vs. Muthuraju Surapa Raju - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1915Mad504; 25Ind.Cas.628; (1914)27MLJ676
AppellantPrati Appala Raju
RespondentMuthuraju Surapa Raju
Excerpt:
- .....treated in this case as the accused is not a person who occupies the land otherwise than by inheritance. the conviction cannot therefore be sustained. the conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine if levied will be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The accused was a tenant in possession of lands of which the complainant is said to be the landholder, His father was in possession before him. The landlord sued him in ejectment and a decree for possession was passed in his favour before the Estates Land Act came into force on the ground that the tenant had no occupancy right and that his right to possession had been determined by notice to quit. He is now prosecuted and convicted under Section 212 of the Estates Land Act for being in possession of the land without the landlord's consent. Section 212 of the Estates Land Act would apply only if the decree could be treated as one passed under Section 163. It could not be so treated in this case as the accused is not a person who occupies the land otherwise than by inheritance. The conviction cannot therefore be sustained. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded.


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