Krishna Vs. Lakshminaranappa

Krishna vs Lakshminaranappa

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 28, 1891

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784491

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/784491
Court: Chennai
Judge: Parker and ;Wilkinson, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 28, 1891
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Rent Recovery Act - Act VIII of 1865 (Madras), Sections 3, 12--Mulgeni holding--Right of tenant to relinquish his lease. -

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna

Respondent

Lakshminaranappa

Legal References

Cases Referred: Chockalinga Pillai v. Vythealinga Pundara Sunnady
Reported In: (1892)ILR15Mad67

Excerpt

rent recovery act - act viii of 1865 (madras), sections 3, 12--mulgeni holding--right of tenant to relinquish his lease. - 1. we are of opinion that section 12 of the rent recovery act does not apply to this case. in the first place it is not shown that the plaintiff comes within the class of landholders defined by section 3, and next it is impossible to suppose that in an act for consolidating and improving the law for the recovery of rent, it could possibly be intended to repeal the ordinary law relating to contracts and enact that one contracting party could put an end to the contract whenever he chose and the other never. see the remarks of holloway, j., page 173, in the case of chockalinga pillai v. vythealinga pundara sunnady 6 m.h.c.r. 164.2. the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. We are of opinion that Section 12 of the Rent Recovery Act does not apply to this case. In the first place it is not shown that the plaintiff comes within the class of landholders defined by Section 3, and next it is impossible to suppose that in an Act for consolidating and improving the law for the recovery of rent, it could possibly be intended to repeal the ordinary law relating to contracts and enact that one contracting party could put an end to the contract whenever he chose and the other never. See the remarks of Holloway, J., page 173, in the case of Chockalinga Pillai v. Vythealinga Pundara Sunnady 6 M.H.C.R. 164.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Krishna vs Lakshminaranappa Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Parker and ;Wilkinson, JJ.

Tenancy