Anantha Bhatta Vs. Mavinamale Anantha Bhatta and ors.

Anantha Bhatta vs Mavinamale Anantha Bhatta and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 04, 1918

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/794454

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/794454
Court: Chennai
Judge: Phillips and ;Kumaraswami Sastriar, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 04, 1918
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Execution of decree - Attachment--Mulgani tenant in South Canara--Right to improvements, whether can be attached. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anantha Bhatta

Respondent

Mavinamale Anantha Bhatta and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Eressa Menan v. Shamu Patter
Reported In: 48Ind.Cas.705

Excerpt

execution of decree - attachment--mulgani tenant in south canara--right to improvements, whether can be attached. - 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 2 ind. dec. 962 and eressa menan v. shamu patter 7 ind. dec. 454 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 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 2 Ind. Dec. 962 and Eressa Menan v. Shamu Patter 7 Ind. Dec. 454 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 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 Mavinamale Anantha Bhatta and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Phillips and ;Kumaraswami Sastriar, JJ.

Civil