Anantha Bhatta Vs. Manimmale Anantha Bhatta and ors.

Anantha Bhatta vs Manimmale Anantha Bhatta and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 04, 1918

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784981

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/784981
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Sep 04, 1918
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anantha Bhatta

Respondent

Manimmale Anantha Bhatta and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Eressa Menon v. Shamu Pattar I.L.R.
Reported In: (1919)36MLJ92

Excerpt

- 1. the question is whether the right to improvements of a mulgeni tenant can be attached and sold in execution.2. it is conceded that his rights are the same as the rights of a tenant in malabar, and it has been held by this court in achuta v. kali i.l.r. (1884) m. 454 and eressa menon v. shamu pattar i.l.r. (1898) m. 138 that a right to compensation for improvements is merely an inchoate right which only becomes perfected at eviction. it is a right to be enforced only at the time of eviction and the extent of the right is dependent on what may be the relations between the landlord and the tenant at that time and also on the number and nature of the improvements in existence then. in the present case the lease being permanent the right may never mature. this being so we must hold that such a right cannot be attached.3. whether individual improvements can be attached and sold is a question which does not arise in this case and need not be discussed.4. the second appeal is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. The question is whether the right to improvements of a mulgeni tenant can be attached and sold in execution.

2. It is conceded that his rights are the same as the rights of a tenant in Malabar, and it has been held by this Court in Achuta v. Kali I.L.R. (1884) M. 454 and Eressa Menon v. Shamu Pattar I.L.R. (1898) M. 138 that a right to compensation for improvements is merely an inchoate right which only becomes perfected at eviction. It is a right to be enforced only at the time of eviction and the extent of the right is dependent on what may be the relations between the landlord and the tenant at that time and also on the number and nature of the improvements in existence then. In the present case the lease being permanent the right may never mature. This being so we must hold that such a right cannot be attached.

3. Whether individual improvements can be attached and sold is a question which does not arise in this case and need not be discussed.

4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Anantha Bhatta vs Manimmale Anantha Bhatta and ors. Same Subject Tenancy

Tenancy