Skip to content


Veerasami Mudali Vs. Palaniyappan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in84Ind.Cas.799; (1924)46MLJ515
AppellantVeerasami Mudali
RespondentPalaniyappan and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 1. the learned judge has not indicated why he rejects the inference from the documents, which are usually more reliable than the oral evidence......contained in the above judgment the district judge of trichinopoly submitted a finding that the mesne profits should be fixed at rs 115 a year.3. this second appeal again coming on for hearing on thursday, the twenty-second day of march, 1923, after the return of the revised finding called for by the order of this court made herein, dated the 22nd august, 1922.4. we regret we are again unable to accept the finding as to mesne profits, by the learned district judge. all the documentary evidence which the judge himself has set out would make out the mesne profits to be much smaller than what has been found. the learned judge has relied on the evidence of p. w. 2, but the evidence as set out by him is that of p. w. 1. the learned judge has not indicated why he rejects the inference from.....
Judgment:

1. We are unable to understand the reasoning of the learned District Judge in arriving at his finding, and we are therefore unable to accept it even though it is one of fact. We would call upon him to submit a revised finding on the issue in question. We think the parties may be allowed an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence on the point as the evidence on record seems to be too meagre to arrive at a satisfactory finding. Finding will be submitted in two months and 7 days will be allowed for filing objections.

2. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment the District Judge of Trichinopoly submitted a finding that the mesne profits should be fixed at Rs 115 a year.

3. This Second Appeal again coming on for hearing on Thursday, the twenty-second day of March, 1923, after the return of the revised finding called for by the order of this Court made herein, dated the 22nd August, 1922.

4. We regret we are again unable to accept the finding as to mesne profits, by the learned District Judge. All the documentary evidence which the judge himself has set out would make out the mesne profits to be much smaller than what has been found. The learned Judge has relied on the evidence of P. W. 2, but the evidence as set out by him is that of P. W. 1. The learned Judge has not indicated why he rejects the inference from the documents, which are usually more reliable than the oral evidence. We must request the Lower Court to submit a further revised finding on the point; this time it will be on the evidence already on record. Finding will be submitted in eight weeks. Ten days are allowed for filing objections to the finding.

5. In compliance with the order contained in the above Judgment the District Judge of Trichinopoly submitted a finding that the suit lands were 23 and odd acres in extent and that mesne profits should be fixed at Rs. 23 a year.

6. This Second Appeal coming on for final hearing after the return of the revised finding of the Lower Appellate Court called for by the order of this Court made herein, dated the 22nd March, 1923.

7. We accept the finding that the mesne profits should be awarded at Rs. 23 a year. The result is that Second Appeal is allowed and plaintiff's suit for possession is decreed with mesne profits at the rate above stated for three years before suit and till the delivery of possession or for three years whichever is earlier from the date of this decree.

8. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs throughout.


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