Skip to content


Polina Achanna and ors. Vs. Madipati Venkataramana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.175
AppellantPolina Achanna and ors.
RespondentMadipati Venkataramana
Cases ReferredVelagaleti Ramakrishnayya v. Suramani Bapayya Appa Row
Excerpt:
madras rent recovery act (viii of 1865), sections 10, 12, 41, 49, 70 - ejection of tenant by illegal order of revenue court--suit for possession and damages under section 12--suit for damages alone maintainable--'proceedings', meaning of. - - 1. the suit in this case was instituted under section 12 of act vtq of 1865 for recovery of possession of the land from which the plaintiff, a ryot, was ejected by the land-holder in pursuance of an order obtained under section 10 of act viii of 1865, in consequence of the plaintiff's failure to accept a patta which he was directed to accept by the revenue court......41. but the learned vakil for the appellants contends that as the eviction was unlawful, the suit is maintainable in so far as the claim for damages is concerned, under section 49 of the act, which provides that 'any person deeming himself aggrieved by any proceedings taken under colour of this act shall be at liberty to seek redress by filing a summary suit for damages before the collector.' this contention must prevail. mr. seshagiri iyer, for the respondent, contends that section 49 is not applicable to the case, as the expression 'proceedings' must be understood to mean 'proceedings taken by a public officer or a court,' and no proceedings of a public officer are impeached by the plaintiff as improper, and be refers to section 76 which speaks of 'a judgment of a collector in.....
Judgment:

1. The suit in this case was instituted under Section 12 of Act VTQ of 1865 for recovery of possession of the land from which the plaintiff, a ryot, was ejected by the land-holder in pursuance of an order obtained under Section 10 of Act VIII of 1865, in consequence of the plaintiff's failure to accept a patta which he was directed to accept by the Revenue Court. The plaintiff claimed also damages sustained by him in consequence of the unlawful eviction. The order of eviction was passed by the Revenue Court on the 20th January 1906 and was carried out on the 22nd contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Act, which enacts that the tenant shall not be evicted before the expiration of thirty days from the date of the order. The District Court held that the suit was not maintainable under Section 12 of the Act and in so holding it was right, as that Section only provides that no tenant shall be ejected without an order under Section 10 or Section 41. But the learned Vakil for the appellants contends that as the eviction was unlawful, the suit is maintainable in so far as the claim for damages is concerned, under Section 49 of the Act, which provides that 'any person deeming himself aggrieved by any proceedings taken under colour of this Act shall be at liberty to seek redress by filing a summary suit for damages before the Collector.' This contention must prevail. Mr. Seshagiri Iyer, for the respondent, contends that Section 49 is not applicable to the case, as the expression 'proceedings' must be understood to mean 'proceedings taken by a public officer or a Court,' and no proceedings of a public officer are impeached by the plaintiff as improper, and be refers to Section 76 which speaks of 'a judgment of a Collector in proceedings under this Act.' We cannot accept this argument. Section 76 shows no more than that these are 'proceedings' under the Act in which Collector may pass 'a judgment.' It does not show that there are no proceedings in which he would not do so. The Act authorises the land-holder also to take several proceedings without resort to the Collector. He can tender pattas and distrain property for arrears of rent on his own responsibility, and he may be guilty of various illegalities and irregularities in doing so. He may distrain property when there are no arrears, or without properly tendering a patta which the tenant is bound to accept. He may distrain without making a demand of the arrears as required by law. He may act in violation of the various provisions relating to distraint. Suits have been entertained in all these cases: See Rajah Chelikani Venhatagopala Rayon Garu v. Narayanasami Reddi 27 M.P 210; Velagaleti Ramakrishnayya v. Suramani Bapayya Appa Row 7 M.P 430. We must hold that the claim for damages is maintainable. We reverse the decrees of the lower Courts and remand the suit to the Court of first instance for fresh disposal according to law, in so far as it relates to the claim for damages. Each party will bear his own costs throughout up to date.


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