Skip to content


Para Koothan and ors. Vs. Para Kulla Vandu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in31Ind.Cas.720
AppellantPara Koothan and ors.
RespondentPara Kulla Vandu
Cases ReferredIn Sabapathi Chetti v. Subraya Chetti
Excerpt:
specific relief act (i of 1877), section 9 - plaintiff in joint possession with defendant--court, whether can restore such possession. - .....thought it necessary to obtain a proper finding after making sure that all material considerations had been dealt with. we are not prepared to hold that he was not entitled to do this in revision.2. the question then is only of the propriety of the order he eventually passed, giving the plaintiff a decree with costs throughout, although the finding (accepted by him), was that the plaintiff was entitled to joint possession with the defendants. in hari narain das v. elemjan bibi 23 ind. cas. 618 : 19 cri.l.j. 117 it was held that a court had no power to give joint possession under section 9 of the specific relief act.3. in sabapathi chetti v. subraya chetti 3 ma. 250 the decision was only that a person, whose possession has been partially disturbed, can be restored to possession.....
Judgment:

1. The District Munsif no doubt found in terms against the plaintiff on issue 1. But we understand the learned Judge as having been unable to accept parts of the judgment as reconcilable with that finding and as having, therefore, thought it necessary to obtain a proper finding after making sure that all material considerations had been dealt with. We are not prepared to hold that he was not entitled to do this in revision.

2. The question then is only of the propriety of the order he eventually passed, giving the plaintiff a decree with costs throughout, although the finding (accepted by him), was that the plaintiff was entitled to joint possession with the defendants. In Hari Narain Das v. Elemjan Bibi 23 Ind. Cas. 618 : 19 Cri.L.J. 117 it was held that a Court had no power to give joint possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.

3. In Sabapathi Chetti v. Subraya Chetti 3 Ma. 250 the decision was only that a person, whose possession has been partially disturbed, can be restored to possession under that provision. We follow the Calcutta decision, and allow the Letters Patent Appeal with costs, dismissing the civil revision petition with costs.


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