Raghu Gowdo Vs. Gowdo Chandro Naiko

Raghu Gowdo vs Gowdo Chandro Naiko

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 22, 1896

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776055

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/776055
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Apr 22, 1896
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - This being so, it being clear that the appellant having attorned to another landlord who is not and could not properly be made a party to this suit, the suit must fail.

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raghu Gowdo

Respondent

Gowdo Chandro Naiko

Legal References

Reported In: (1897)7MLJ243

Excerpt

- - this being so, it being clear that the appellant having attorned to another landlord who is not and could not properly be made a party to this suit, the suit must fail.1. we cannot agree with the view taken by the district judge to the effect that registration is conclusive.2. the judgment cited i.l.r. 15 m. 484 by him does not support that position. it appears from the judgment of the deputy collector that the appellant had given muchilikas to, and accepted puttahs from, jagannadha for prior faslies, and even for this very fasli for which puttah is now demanded. this being so, it being clear that the appellant having attorned to another landlord who is not and could not properly be made a party to this suit, the suit must fail.3. of course, it is open to the plaintiff, if so advised, to bring a regular suit against jagannadha to declare his title.4. we must allow the appeal and restore the judgment of the deputy collector with costs in this and in the lower appellate court.

Full Judgment

1. We cannot agree with the view taken by the District Judge to the effect that registration is conclusive.

2. The judgment cited I.L.R. 15 M. 484 by him does not support that position. It appears from the judgment of the Deputy Collector that the appellant had given muchilikas to, and accepted puttahs from, Jagannadha for prior faslies, and even for this very fasli for which puttah is now demanded. This being so, it being clear that the appellant having attorned to another landlord who is not and could not properly be made a party to this suit, the suit must fail.

3. Of course, it is open to the plaintiff, if so advised, to bring a regular suit against Jagannadha to declare his title.

4. We must allow the appeal and restore the judgment of the Deputy Collector with costs in this and in the Lower Appellate Court.

Same Parties Raghu Gowdo vs Gowdo Chandro Naiko Same Subject Tenancy

Tenancy