Chennai Court May 1894 Judgments

Krishnabhupati Devu Vs. Ramamurti Pantulu and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad405

1. The only point arising in the appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge has rightly decided that it is necessary for the plaintiff to sue for possession.2. It is not alleged in the plaint that plaintiff was in possession or that the property had actually passed to his possession, but the learned Advocate-General contends that when the property was attached and symbolical possession given under Section 319, Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff's father was really in possession on plaintiff's account, and hence that there was no dispossession of plaintiff, though his father may have been himself dispossessed.3. We were referred to the following cases: Narainan v. Nilakandan Nambudri I.L.R. 4 Mad. 131; Dayachand Nemchand v. Hemchand Dharamchand I.L.R. 4 Bom. 515; Juggobundhu Mukerjee v. Ram Chunder Bysack I.L.R. 5 Cal. 584 and Lokessur Koer v. Purgun Roy I.L.R. 7 Cal. 418 but we do not think they support this contention. The two first are authority for the proposition that mere attachment...