Skip to content


Gnanaprakasam Fernanda Vs. M.S. Ratnasami Nadar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1951)1MLJ425
AppellantGnanaprakasam Fernanda
RespondentM.S. Ratnasami Nadar
Excerpt:
- - in these three petitions, it has been urged that nearly 70 houses have been built on the suit plots, and also a church and that it will be very hard for the poor petitioners and other persons, who have built the houses, if they are suddenly bundled out of the plots after dismantling the houses and thrown into the streets and that they must at least be given some time to find suitable accommodation elsewhere especially as the government are taking land acquisition proceedings for acquiring these very plots for the petitioners and others involved......regarding the alleged land acquisition proceedings producted by the petitioner's counsel now as these records were not exhibited before the lower court or referred to by it specifically before passing its order. nor am i concerned with the action, if any, said to be proposed to be taken by the government for taking possession of these plots prior to acquisition.2. in the end, therefore, i confirm the orders of the lower court in all the three execution applications but direct the eviction orders should only be passed in the execution proceedings on or after the 1st february, 1951. i am giving this time in the exercise of my inherent powers just as time is often given in equity, when a house rent appeal against eviction is rejected, for the person sought to be evicted to get some suitable.....
Judgment:

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. These are three connected Civil Revision Petitions against the order of the District Munsif of Tuticorin, dated 5th August, 1950, refusing stay of execution and delivery of the suit plots to the decree-holder, Ratnasami Nadar, in E.P. No. 302 of 1950 in O.S. No. 11 of 1947 on the ground that he had no powers to do so under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code or under any other provision of law. In these three petitions, it has been urged that nearly 70 houses have been built on the suit plots, and also a church and that it will be very hard for the poor petitioners and other persons, who have built the houses, if they are suddenly bundled out of the plots after dismantling the houses and thrown into the streets and that they must at least be given some time to find suitable accommodation elsewhere especially as the Government are taking land acquisition proceedings for acquiring these very plots for the petitioners and others involved. I agree with the lower Court that there is no reason whatever for staying eviction indefinitely as the appellate Court's judgment in A.S. No. 80 of 1948 was delivered as long as 10th December, 1948, and second appeals have not yet been filed. But, on the other hand, I have no doubt whatever that this is a case where some little time ought to be given to the petitioners for finding suitable accommodation elsewhere before bundling them out of this site and I consider the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners for time to be given till the 1st of February, 1951, to be reasonable. I see nothing in law preventing a Court from giving such short time in the exercise of its inherent powers, under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code or otherwise. Of course, I cannot look into the Gazette notifications regarding the alleged land acquisition proceedings producted by the petitioner's counsel now as these records were not exhibited before the lower Court or referred to by it specifically before passing its order. Nor am I concerned with the action, if any, said to be proposed to be taken by the Government for taking possession of these plots prior to acquisition.

2. In the end, therefore, I confirm the orders of the lower Court in all the three execution applications but direct the eviction orders should only be passed in the execution proceedings on or after the 1st February, 1951. I am giving this time in the exercise of my inherent powers just as time is often given in equity, when a house rent appeal against eviction is rejected, for the person sought to be evicted to get some suitable accommodation, if he can, within the time given. In the circumstances, of course, the petitioners will pay the costs of the respondent in all these three Civil Revision Petitions. The three Civil Miscellaneous Petitions do not require separate orders, in view of the orders in the Civil Revision Petitions. They are also closed. No order as to costs in them.


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