Oliver Vs. Anantharamayyan

Oliver vs Anantharamayyan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 17, 1894

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784400

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/784400
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Parker, J.
Decided On: Apr 17, 1894
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Rent Recovery Act - Madras Act VIII of 1866, Section 39--Service by affixing notice of intention to sell on some conspicuous part of the tenant's land--Residence of tenant in foreign territory. - - 42 We do not think it could have been intended that a landlord should go himself or send an agent into foreign territ...

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Oliver

Respondent

Anantharamayyan

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Saminatha v. Viranna I.L.R.
Reported In: (1895)ILR18Mad30

Excerpt

rent recovery act - madras act viii of 1866, section 39--service by affixing notice of intention to sell on some conspicuous part of the tenant's land--residence of tenant in foreign territory. - - 42 we do not think it could have been intended that a landlord should go himself or send an agent into foreign territory to tender a patta, and we, therefore, hold that the service contemplated in the first instance under section 39 could not be effected, and hence that the service by affixing a copy on a conspicuous part of the land was tinder the circumstances a good and valid service......any patta was tendered to him, and though the kurnam deposed that there was, there is no finding by the judge upon that point.3. the patta tendered was stuck up on the land in the manner prescribed by section 39, and the question is whether this mode of service was justifiable when the defendant was known to be living in foreign territory and had no authorised agent on the spot.4. the procedure is only justifiable when service cannot be effected on the tenant himself or on some adult male member of his family at his usual place of abode, or on his authorized agent (section 39). the section must be construed reasonably and the words 'at his usual place of abode' would seem to denote that it was contemplated that the notice would ordinarily be served upon the tenant himself, his relative or his authorized agent in the neighbourhood of the land in respect of which the patta was tendered. a tender through the post would not be effectual--see venkatachellam chetti v. kadumthusi i.l.r. 4 mad. 145 and saminatha v. viranna i.l.r. 13 mad. 42 we do not think it could have been intended that a landlord should go himself or send an agent into foreign territory to tender a patta, and we, therefore, hold that the service contemplated in the first instance under section 39 could not be effected, and hence that the service by affixing a copy on a conspicuous part of the land was tinder the circumstances a good and valid service. the decree of the district -judge must be reversed and the appeal remanded to be disposed of on the merits. appellant is entitled to costs of this appeal, and the costs in the lower appellate court will abide and follow the result.

Full Judgment

1. The District Judge has reversed the decision of the Sub-Collector and dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no proper tender of patta in the manner prescribed by law (Sections 7 and 89, Madras Act VIII of 1865).

2. Defendant was a clerk in the District Court of Cochin at Trichoor and was not residing in the Tanjore district. One Ganapathi Subbier was looking after his cultivation for him in Tanjore, but had no power-of-attorney from him. Ganapathi Subbier denies that any patta was tendered to him, and though the kurnam deposed that there was, there is no finding by the Judge upon that point.

3. The patta tendered was stuck up on the land in the manner prescribed by Section 39, and the question is whether this mode of service was justifiable when the defendant was known to be living in foreign territory and had no authorised agent on the spot.

4. The procedure is only justifiable when service cannot be effected on the tenant himself or on some adult male member of his family at his usual place of abode, or on his authorized agent (Section 39). the section must be construed reasonably and the words 'at his usual place of abode' would seem to denote that it was contemplated that the notice would ordinarily be served upon the tenant himself, his relative or his authorized agent in the neighbourhood of the land in respect of which the patta was tendered. A tender through the post would not be effectual--see Venkatachellam Chetti v. Kadumthusi I.L.R. 4 Mad. 145 and Saminatha v. Viranna I.L.R. 13 Mad. 42 We do not think it could have been intended that a landlord should go himself or send an agent into foreign territory to tender a patta, and we, therefore, hold that the service contemplated in the first instance under Section 39 could not be effected, and hence that the service by affixing a copy on a conspicuous part of the land was tinder the circumstances a good and valid service. The decree of the District -Judge must be reversed and the appeal remanded to be disposed of on the merits. Appellant is entitled to costs of this appeal, and the costs in the Lower Appellate Court will abide and follow the result.

Same Parties Oliver vs Anantharamayyan Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Parker, J.

Tenancy