Skip to content


Sethu Ramaswamy Pillai Vs. Venkatarama Subbier - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad948; 97Ind.Cas.4
AppellantSethu Ramaswamy Pillai
RespondentVenkatarama Subbier
Excerpt:
- .....he had jurisdiction to try this suit for rent. so far as the pleadings are set out in the judgment (the written statement not having been separately printed), it appears that the defendent did not take the objection that the land was situated in an ' estate' as defined in madras act i of 1908. nor did he adduce any evidence to prove that the plaintiff was a person owning a village which had been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram and that the grant had been recognized by the british government.2. the mere existence of occupancy rights in the tenants, even if true, will not take away the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits for recovery of rent. this petition to revise the small cause court's decree as not being according to law is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Spencer, J.

1. The Subordinate Judge of the Small Cause Court found that he had jurisdiction to try this suit for rent. So far as the pleadings are set out in the judgment (the written statement not having been separately printed), it appears that the defendent did not take the objection that the land was situated in an ' estate' as defined in Madras Act I of 1908. Nor did he adduce any evidence to prove that the plaintiff was a person owning a village which had been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram and that the grant had been recognized by the British Government.

2. The mere existence of occupancy rights in the tenants, even if true, will not take away the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to try suits for recovery of rent. This petition to revise the Small Cause Court's decree as not being according to law is dismissed with costs.


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