Skip to content


Gopisetti Narainsawmi Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole Estate Vs. Tallanraju Vencata Subrayudu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.642
AppellantGopisetti Narainsawmi Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole Estate
RespondentTallanraju Vencata Subrayudu and ors.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - claim for kattubadi against inamdar--kattubadi, not a claim for rent--madras estates land act (i of 1908)--suit for kattubadi laid in revenue court--plaint returned and presented to the civil court--limitation--interest--madras rent recovery act (viii of 1865), section 37. - .....in that court. but the (sic) is for kattubadi against the inamdar and that claim is not a claim for rent within the meaning of that word in the estates land act. the suit, therefore, properly lay (sic) the ordinary civil court. the petitioner is entitled to the deduction of the time from the date of the institution of the suit in the revenue, court, to the date on which the plaint was returned by the revenue court. if this deduction is made the suit is within time. i see no reason why that deduction should not be allowed in the plaintiff's favour. the next point relates to the claim for interest on the arrears of rent. the landlord is entitled to interest under section 27 of the rent recovery act viii of 1865 which applies to the present case. the plaintiff is, therefore,.....
Judgment:

Munro, J.

1. There are two points raised in this petition. One relates to the rent of Fasli 1315. The Munsif has dismissed the claim as barred by limitation. It is pointed out for the petitioner that he was prosecuting with due diligence the same claim in a Court which had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. He had instituted the suit in the Revenue Court thinking that under the Estates Land Act, (I of 1908), the suit has (sic) be instituted in that Court. But the (sic) is for kattubadi against the Inamdar and that claim is not a claim for rent within the meaning of that word in the Estates Land Act. The suit, therefore, properly lay (sic) the ordinary Civil Court. The petitioner is entitled to the deduction of the time from the date of the institution of the suit in the Revenue, Court, to the date on which the plaint was returned by the Revenue Court. If this deduction is made the suit is within time. I see no reason why that deduction should not be allowed in the plaintiff's favour. The next point relates to the claim for interest on the arrears of rent. The landlord is entitled to interest under Section 27 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865 which applies to the present case. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to claim interest on the arrears of rent sued for. The decree of the District Munsif will be modified by allowing the Kattubadi claimed for Fasli 1315 and also the interest sued for in addition to the amount awarded by the District Munsif. No costs will be allowed.


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