Skip to content


Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Kalliappa Gounder - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1964)1MLJ368
AppellantRamaswamy Gounder
RespondentKalliappa Gounder
Cases ReferredKhadir v. Rajagopal
Excerpt:
- .....of the ward's property for a period less than five years, it should be taken that the previous year's lease was a valid one and the tenant let into possession, he would be entitled to protection under act xxv of 1955. i am unable to agree with this contention. as i said the property was under the control of the court and the court directed lease of the property by auction every year. i have held in civil revision petition no. 2079 and 2080 of 1961, that the grant of lease by a receiver appointed by the court during the pendency of the litigation will not entitle the lessee to claim the benefits of act xxv of 1955. the same principle, in my opinion, will apply to the case of a property guardian appointed by the court who is acting under the directions of the court for leasing out the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.

1. The properties of a minor, a ward of Court were under the control of District Judge, Coimbatore. Under the Guardian and Wards Act a property guardian had been appointed. Under the directions of the Court, lease of the properties was granted year after year to the highest bidder at the auction. The petitioner was the successful bidder for the leasehold right for the period from 14th January, 1962, to the corresponding date in the year 1963. In the following year the property guardian wanted to lease out the property in accordance with the previous practice and accordingly in the auction that was held the respondent, the successful bidder became the lessee for a year. The latter applied to the Court for directions as to delivery of possession from the former lessee. In this, he was resisted on the ground that the former lessee had acquired rights under the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The learned District Judge overruled this objection on the ground that in the interests of the minor's estate the property should be leased out every year and that remedy of the petitioner would be to go before the appropriate authorities thereby implying that he can approach the tribunal functioning under Madras Act XXV of 1955. In this Civil Revision Petition against the order of the learned District Judge, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act the property guardian will have authority without leave of Court to grant lease of the ward's property for a period less than five years, it should be taken that the previous year's lease was a valid one and the tenant let into possession, he would be entitled to protection under Act XXV of 1955. I am unable to agree with this contention. As I said the property was under the control of the Court and the Court directed lease of the property by auction every year. I have held in Civil Revision Petition No. 2079 and 2080 of 1961, that the grant of lease by a Receiver appointed by the Court during the pendency of the litigation will not entitle the lessee to claim the benefits of Act XXV of 1955. The same principle, in my opinion, will apply to the case of a property guardian appointed by the Court who is acting under the directions of the Court for leasing out the minor's properties. It follows that the petitioner will have no right as a cultivating tenant to continue in possession of the property beyond the period of his lease. From what I have stated it will be clear that the petitioner has no rights at all and there is, therefore, no question of his seeking remedies from any of the tribunals functioning under the Act.

2. Mr. Selvaraj appearing for the petitioner, however, has referred to the decision in Khadir v. Rajagopal : (1956)1MLJ34 , where it was held that a lease by a Receiver who virtually represented the real owner of the property would entitle the tenant of agricultural land to claim protection under the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952. I have pointed out in another case the distinction in this respect between the Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act and the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act. In my opinion a lessee from a Receiver who is authorized to lease the property for a limited period during the pendency of certain proceedings or from a guardian during the period of his guardianship subject to the directions of the Court cannot obtain the benefits of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act unless the Court by appropriate directions confers by its order such benefit at the time of granting the lease. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.


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