Skip to content


Achutan Nayar Vs. Narasimham Patter - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR21Mad411
AppellantAchutan Nayar
RespondentNarasimham Patter
Cases ReferredCourt Govinda Menon v. Darnodaran Nambudripad Second Appeal No.
Excerpt:
malabar compensation for tenants' improvements act (madras) - act i of 1887--timber trees. - .....was found to be rs. 1,505-8-6. the munsif disallowed about half of this amount as the landlord's share, on the authority of an unreported decision of this court govinda menon v. darnodaran nambudripad second appeal no. 194 of 1889 unreported. we do not find in that decision any such authority as is supposed, nor is there anything in the malabar compensation for tenants' improvements act i of 1887 authorizing the distribution of any share of any improvement to the landlord. the point that the one-half deduction that had been made in the total amount above referred to was wrong was taken in the appeal grounds to the lower appellate court, but the objection was overruled by the subordinate judge without his noticing the true ground on which it was made. we are of opinion that the.....
Judgment:

1. The value of such of the thirtieth defendant's improvements as consisted of timber trees, &c.;, was found to be Rs. 1,505-8-6. The Munsif disallowed about half of this amount as the landlord's share, on the authority of an unreported decision of this Court Govinda Menon v. Darnodaran Nambudripad Second Appeal No. 194 of 1889 unreported. We do not find in that decision any such authority as is supposed, nor is there anything in the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act I of 1887 authorizing the distribution of any share of any improvement to the landlord. The point that the one-half deduction that had been made in the total amount above referred to was wrong was taken in the appeal grounds to the lower Appellate Court, but the objection was overruled by the Subordinate Judge without his noticing the true ground on which it was made. We are of opinion that the disallowance of half the amount found due for the improvements proceeded on an erroneous view of the law, and that there is nothing to justify it. We must, therefore, so far, allow this appeal as to direct that the sum of Rs. 757-13-9 disallowed by the lower Courts be added to the amount decreed to the thirtieth defendant for kanom and improvements. We are not prepared to rule that the data on which the value of the reclamation improvements was calculated were wrong in principle, and we dismiss this ground of appeal. The parties will bear their own costs in this and the lower Appellate Court. Time for redemption is extended for three months from this date.


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