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.

Devarasetti Narasimham and anr. Vs. Devarasetti Venkiah and anr.

Devarasetti Narasimham and anr. vs Devarasetti Venkiah and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 17, 1915
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/819253

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
Civil;Limitation

Case Summary

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

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Schedule I, Article 29 - Suit to recover value of standing' crops cut and carried away--Standing crops, whether moveable property--Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908,), Section 2(13)--Immoveable property, definition of--General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Section 3(25). -

Key legal issue
Civil;Limitation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devarasetti Narasimham and anr.

Respondent

Devarasetti Venkiah and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Katagiri Venkataramanujam v. Patibanda Basavayya
Reported In
AIR1916Mad1142(2); 31Ind.Cas.796

Excerpt

limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 29 - suit to recover value of standing' crops cut and carried away--standing crops, whether moveable property--civil procedure code (act v of 1908,), section 2(13)--immoveable property, definition of--general clauses act (x of 1897), section 3(25). - kumaraswami sastri, j.1. the only question for determination is whether standing crops are to be treated as moveable or immoveable property for the purposes of the indian limitation act.2. it is argued for the petitioners that section 2, clause 13, of the civil procedure code defines moveable property as including standing crops and that a suit for recovery of the value of standing crops wrongfully cat and carried away is a suit for the recovery of compensation in respect of moveable property governed by article 29 of the second schedule to the limitation act.3. i do not think that the definition in the civil procedure code can govern the provisions of the limitation act. there is no definition of moveable property in the limitation act and reference must be had to the general clauses act, x of 1897, which enacts that the definitions given in the act shall govern all enactments passed subsequent thereto. immoveable property is defined by clause 25 of section 3 as including things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. this will clearly include standing crops. pandah gazi v. jennuddi 4 c.p 665 : 2 c.l.r. 526; sadu v. sambhu 6 b.p 592.4. though standing crops were included in the term moveable property' for the purposes of the civil procedure code, a similar chants which was proposed when the limitation act was drafted in 1908 was for some reason or other given up.5. if standing crops are immoveable property, the case is governed by the full bench decision in katagiri venkataramanujam v. patibanda basavayya 21 ind. cas. 213 : 14 m.l.t. 225 : 25 m.l.j. 447 : 1913 m.w.n. 869.6. the decision of the district munsif is correct and the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. The only question for determination is whether standing crops are to be treated as moveable or immoveable property for the purposes of the Indian Limitation Act.

2. It is argued for the petitioners that Section 2, Clause 13, of the Civil Procedure Code defines moveable property as including standing crops and that a suit for recovery of the value of standing crops wrongfully cat and carried away is a suit for the recovery of compensation in respect of moveable property governed by Article 29 of the second Schedule to the Limitation Act.

3. I do not think that the definition in the Civil Procedure Code can govern the provisions of the Limitation Act. There is no definition of moveable property in the Limitation Act and reference must be had to the General Clauses Act, X of 1897, which enacts that the definitions given in the Act shall govern all enactments passed subsequent thereto. Immoveable property is defined by Clause 25 of Section 3 as including things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. This will clearly include standing crops. Pandah Gazi v. Jennuddi 4 C.P 665 : 2 C.L.R. 526; Sadu v. Sambhu 6 B.P 592.

4. Though standing crops were included in the term moveable property' for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Code, a similar chants which was proposed when the Limitation Act was drafted in 1908 was for some reason or other given up.

5. If standing crops are immoveable property, the case is governed by the Full Bench decision in Katagiri Venkataramanujam v. Patibanda Basavayya 21 Ind. Cas. 213 : 14 M.L.T. 225 : 25 M.L.J. 447 : 1913 M.W.N. 869.

6. The decision of the District Munsif is correct and the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial