Skip to content


Moolinti Veerana Gowd Vs. Devarinti Bhima Reddy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.253
AppellantMoolinti Veerana Gowd
RespondentDevarinti Bhima Reddy
Excerpt:
pattadar, mortgage by - relinquishment--decree and sale by mortgagee after relinquishment, whether binds new pattadar--contract act (ix of 1872), sections 69 and 70--assessment paid by mortgagee--right to recover. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the..........a patta. he claims to be entitled to recover the land from the defendant on the strength of the patta granted to him. the district munsif and the subordinate judge dismissed the suit. the subordinate judge observes that the relinquishment put an end to the plaintiff's right under the mortgage. it is not necessary to decide whether the opinion is sound. assuming that the mortgage was unaffected by the relinquishment by veerappa, this fact would be of no use to the plaintiff. veerappa had executed a relinquishment in favour of government before the plaintiff instituted the suit. the plaintiff's decree and sale can give him no right to recover the land against an individual, who claims under a title granted by government. on this ground, we uphold the decree of the lower courts.2. the.....
Judgment:

1. This is a suit in ejectment. The Government granted a patta to one Veerappa. The pattadar, together with a brother of his, executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in March 1393. On the 5th July, the pattadar relinquished the land to the Government. It lay waste for some time and the Government afterwards granted a patta to the defendant. The plaintiff instituted a suit on his mortgage after the land had been relinquished by Veerappa, got a decree and brought the land to sale in 1900 and was afterwards able to induce the Revenue Authorities to grant him a patta. He claims to be entitled to recover the land from the defendant on the strength of the patta granted to him. The District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge observes that the relinquishment put an end to the plaintiff's right under the mortgage. It is not necessary to decide whether the opinion is sound. Assuming that the mortgage was unaffected by the relinquishment by Veerappa, this fact would be of no use to the plaintiff. Veerappa had executed a relinquishment in favour of Government before the plaintiff instituted the suit. The plaintiff's decree and sale can give him no right to recover the land against an individual, who claims under a title granted by Government. On this ground, we uphold the decree of the lower Courts.

2. The plaintiff claims also to recover the assessment he paid after he got his patta. He has no cause of action against the defendant. He did not make the payment on defendant's behalf. He paid the assessment voluntarily. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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