Skip to content


Sreenivasa Varadachary Vs. Narasinga Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.796
AppellantSreenivasa Varadachary
RespondentNarasinga Pillai
Cases ReferredPichuvayyan v. Vilakkudayan Asari
Excerpt:
madras regulation (vi of 1831) - madras act (iii of 1895)--adverse possession--commencement of limitation. - - until the madras act iii of 1895 came into force, a suit like the present would only have been brought in a revenue court under madras regulation vi of 1831, and the limitation act of 1877 does not apply to suits under the regulation......came into force, a suit like the present would only have been brought in a revenue court under madras regulation vi of 1831, and the limitation act of 1877 does not apply to suits under the regulation. until the madras act iii of 1895 came into force, therefore, no title by prescription to the lands could be acquired, see pichuvayyan v. vilakkudayan asari 21 mp. 134 and if no title by prescription could be acquired, it is difficult to see how possession prior to the madras act iii of 1895, which was entirely ineffective, can be relied upon in a suit brought after the passing of that act. in the present case 12 years have not elapsed since the madras act iii of 1895 came into force, and it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant's subsequent possession would be adverse so as.....
Judgment:

1. The suit is for possession of certain lands which are attached as emoluments to the office of karnam, and the only question for determination in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation by reason of the defendant's adverse possession for more than 12 years. Until the Madras Act III of 1895 came into force, a suit like the present would only have been brought in a Revenue Court under Madras Regulation VI of 1831, and the Limitation Act of 1877 does not apply to suits under the Regulation. Until the Madras Act III of 1895 came into force, therefore, no title by prescription to the lands could be acquired, see Pichuvayyan v. Vilakkudayan Asari 21 MP. 134 and if no title by prescription could be acquired, it is difficult to see how possession prior to the Madras Act III of 1895, which was entirely ineffective, can be relied upon in a suit brought after the passing of that Act. In the present case 12 years have not elapsed since the Madras Act III of 1895 came into force, and it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant's subsequent possession would be adverse so as to give a title by prescription. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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