Skip to content


Alapati Ammanna and anr. Vs. Narayanasamy Naidu Garu, Receiver Nidadavole Estate of Nellore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.720a
AppellantAlapati Ammanna and anr.
RespondentNarayanasamy Naidu Garu, Receiver Nidadavole Estate of Nellore
Cases ReferredRamasami v. Bhasharasami
Excerpt:
madras rent recovery act (viii of 1865), sections 7 and 13. - .....the munsif is right. the defendants having bought the right to cultivate the land at auction upon certain terms embodied in the sale list and the documents, they are bound to abide by these terms apart from the question whether section 13 of the act applies or not. there is nothing in any of the sale lists referred to by the landlord for the petitioner showing that there was a contract between the paries that the rent could not be recovered unless there had been a previous exchange of puttas muchilihas between them.2. the petitions nos. 440 and 454 are, therefore, dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. As regards the application of Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act the case of Ramasami v. Bhasharasami 2 M. 67, relied on by the Munsif, is a conclusive answer. On the other point also the decree of the Munsif is right. The defendants having bought the right to cultivate the land at auction upon certain terms embodied in the sale list and the documents, they are bound to abide by these terms apart from the question whether Section 13 of the Act applies or not. There is nothing in any of the sale lists referred to by the landlord for the petitioner showing that there was a contract between the paries that the rent could not be recovered unless there had been a previous exchange of puttas muchilihas between them.

2. The petitions Nos. 440 and 454 are, therefore, dismissed with costs.


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