Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: M. Rama Moothan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 16, 1911
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/802764

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

Adverse possession - Suit for possession on basis of purchase in Court auction--Symbolical possession--Limitation. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: M. Rama Moothan

Legal References

Cases Referred
Gopal v. Krishna Rao
Reported In
9Ind.Cas.271

Excerpt

adverse possession - suit for possession on basis of purchase in court auction--symbolical possession--limitation. - ralph benson, j.1. it is argued that in the proceedings before the district munsif in 1896, the plaintiff's right to get actual possession was negatived on the ground that the 3rd defendant was a tenant of the 1st defendant, entitled as his tenant, to remain in actual possession, notwithstanding the plaintiff's right to recover possession of the jenm right from the 1st defendant. i observe that the 3rd defendant in these proceedings claimed a jenm right in the land, and resisted the plaintiff's claim to possession. the appellant's vakil is unable to refer me to any evidence that the munsif's decision proceeded on the footing that the 3rd defendant's possession was as a tenant of the 1st defendant. in these circumstances, i do not think that the plaintiff's having obtained symbolical possession from the 1st defendant behind the 3rd defendant's back in 1899 will save the bar by limitation. the case of gopal v. krishna rao 25 b. 275 : 3 bom. l.r. 1020 relied on by the appellant's vakil seems to have no application to the facts of this case.2. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Ralph Benson, J.

1. It is argued that in the proceedings before the District Munsif in 1896, the plaintiff's right to get actual possession was negatived on the ground that the 3rd defendant was a tenant of the 1st defendant, entitled as his tenant, to remain in actual possession, notwithstanding the plaintiff's right to recover possession of the jenm right from the 1st defendant. I observe that the 3rd defendant in these proceedings claimed a jenm right in the land, and resisted the plaintiff's claim to possession. The appellant's Vakil is unable to refer me to any evidence that the Munsif's decision proceeded on the footing that the 3rd defendant's possession was as a tenant of the 1st defendant. In these circumstances, I do not think that the plaintiff's having obtained symbolical possession from the 1st defendant behind the 3rd defendant's back in 1899 will save the bar by limitation. The case of Gopal v. Krishna Rao 25 B. 275 : 3 Bom. L.R. 1020 relied on by the appellant's Vakil seems to have no application to the facts of this case.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial