Raman Vs. Chandan and ors.

Raman vs Chandan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 23, 1891

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/788917

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/788917
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Wilkinson, J.
Decided On: Nov 23, 1891
Subject: Property;Civil

Case Summary

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

Revenue Recovery Act - Act II of 1864, (Madras), Section 59--Abkari notification referring to that Act--Sale to recover sum due from an abkari renter--Limitation for suits to recovery land so sold. -

Key legal issue: Property;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raman

Respondent

Chandan and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: (1892)ILR15Mad219

Excerpt

revenue recovery act - act ii of 1864, (madras), section 59--abkari notification referring to that act--sale to recover sum due from an abkari renter--limitation for suits to recovery land so sold. - 1. the district judge was in error in holding that section 59 of act ii of 1864 applied to the suit, inasmuch as the sale by the collector was not a proceeding under the act, as there is no provision in act ii of 1864 for treating the sum payable for plaintiff as revenue. the sale was ultra vires, and plaintiff had twelve years within which to bring his suit. we set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the munsif. appellant will be entitled to his costs in the lower appellate court. there will be no costs in this court the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the munsif. appellant will be entitled to his costs in the lower appellate court.2. there will be no costs in this court.

Full Judgment

1. The District Judge was in error in holding that Section 59 of Act II of 1864 applied to the suit, inasmuch as the sale by the Collector was not a proceeding under the Act, as there is no provision in Act II of 1864 for treating the sum payable for plaintiff as revenue. The sale was ultra vires, and plaintiff had twelve years within which to bring his suit. We set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Munsif. Appellant will be entitled to his costs in the lower Appellate Court. There will be no costs in this Court the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Munsif. Appellant will be entitled to his costs in the lower Appellate Court.

2. There will be no costs in this Court.

Same Parties Raman vs Chandan and ors. Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Wilkinson, J.

Property;Civil