Skip to content


Neelagara Lingamma Vs. Kinnahal Hampiah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.167
AppellantNeelagara Lingamma
RespondentKinnahal Hampiah
Excerpt:
possessory tittle - suit for recovery of land--right of suit against person having no title. - .....institution of the suit, and that the subsequent execution of a sale-deed in his favour would not entitle him to maintain the suit. but the plaintiff had an unregistered sale deed in 1901 and we take the finding of the subordinate judge to mean that, after he got that sale-deed, he was in possession of the land by leasing it out to others until dispossessed by the defendant. he had, therefore, a possessory title which was sufficient to entitle him to a decree for possession against the 1st defendant who had no title.2. it is next argued that plaintiff ought not to have been allowed to amend his plaint, by adding a prayer for possession.3. we do not think there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the discretion of the lower appellate court in allowing the amendment.4. the last point.....
Judgment:

1. It is first contended that the plaintiff had no title to recover the land at the time of the institution of the suit, and that the subsequent execution of a sale-deed in his favour would not entitle him to maintain the suit. But the plaintiff had an unregistered sale deed in 1901 and we take the finding of the Subordinate Judge to mean that, after he got that sale-deed, he was in possession of the land by leasing it out to others until dispossessed by the defendant. He had, therefore, a possessory title which was sufficient to entitle him to a decree for possession against the 1st defendant who had no title.

2. It is next argued that plaintiff ought not to have been allowed to amend his plaint, by adding a prayer for possession.

3. We do not think there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the discretion of the lower Appellate Court in allowing the amendment.

4. The last point relates to the award of damages to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he was not able to cultivate the land owing to the defendant's obstruction. According to the defendant, he was himself in possession of the land and was cultivating it. In either case, the plaintiff is entitled to damages. We dismiss the Second appeal with costs.


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