Ramasami Mudaliar Vs. Rathna Mudaliar

Ramasami Mudaliar vs Rathna Mudaliar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 26, 1897

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/789903

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/789903
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.; and Davies, J.
Decided On: Oct 26, 1897
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

Rent Recovery Act Madras - Act VIII of 1865, Section 8--Suit to enforce tender of patta--Suit brought after expiration of fasli. -

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramasami Mudaliar

Respondent

Rathna Mudaliar

Legal References

Cases Referred: Venkatasami Naik v. Setupati Ambalam
Reported In: (1898)ILR21Mad148

Excerpt

rent recovery act madras - act viii of 1865, section 8--suit to enforce tender of patta--suit brought after expiration of fasli. - 1. we do not think that exhibit iii is evidence of an implied undertaking by the plaintiff that he accepted the rates and terms of the patta, exhibit a.2. but the second point urged that the suit was not brought within the fasli 1303 to which the patta relates is, we think, fatal to the suit, it has been held in venkatasami naik v. setupati ambalam 7 m.h.c.r. 359 that a patta must be tenderd by a landlord within the fasli for which rent is sought to be recovered, and we are of opinion that the same rule must apply to a tenant when he demands a patta from the landlord. this suit, being brought after the expiration of the fasli. for which the patta was demanded, was therefore barred by time. on that ground only, we reverse the decree of the district judge and restore that of the deputy collector. the plaintiff must pay the costs of the appellant in this and in the lower appellate court.

Full Judgment

1. We do not think that Exhibit III is evidence of an implied undertaking by the plaintiff that he accepted the rates and terms of the patta, Exhibit A.

2. But the second point urged that the suit was not brought within the fasli 1303 to which the patta relates is, we think, fatal to the suit, It has been held in Venkatasami Naik v. Setupati Ambalam 7 M.H.C.R. 359 that a patta must be tenderd by a landlord within the fasli for which rent is sought to be recovered, and we are of opinion that the same rule must apply to a tenant when he demands a patta from the landlord. This suit, being brought after the expiration of the fasli. for which the patta was demanded, was therefore barred by time. On that ground only, we reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Deputy Collector. The plaintiff must pay the costs of the appellant in this and in the lower Appellate Court.

Same Parties Ramasami Mudaliar vs Rathna Mudaliar Same Subject Property Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.; and Davies, J.

Property