MUNISAMI NAIDU Vs. C RANGANATHAN
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on October 30,1990

MUNISAMI NAIDU Appellant
VERSUS
C. RANGANATHAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KUNDAN MAL VS. GURUDUTTA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

R SURENDIRAKUMAR VS. C BALAJI SINGH [LAWS(MAD)-1998-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
MURTI SHRI KHOKYAJI HANUMAN VS. SHAMBHADYAL SAXENA [LAWS(MPH)-1994-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
GANDABHAI RANCHHODJI GANDHI VS. NOSHIR KAVASJI SABAWALA [LAWS(GJH)-1993-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. XVIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-404] [REFERRED TO]
RUPINDER SINGH AND ORS. VS. NARANJAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-263] [REFERRED TO]
BAPURAO SON OF MAHADEORAO PATMASE VS. NIRMALABEN WIFE OF RATILAL PANCHMATI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-248] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree dated 17-12-75 of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No. 1835 of 1974.
(2.)The suit property is a piece of agricultural land. It fell to be settled on Saradammal under a Compromise Decree dated 24-7-1963 between her and other members of a joint family. Having acquired title thereto, she executed a registered Lease Deed in favour of the appellant on 2-8-1963 conferring on him a tenure of five years. During the course thereof, as it appears, on 14-9-1966 she settled the holding in favour of her brother, the respondent herein, but by a deed which was not registered. On 1-8-1967, Saradammal died. On 4-9-1968, the respondent sent a notice to the appellant asking him to pay the arrears of rent but the notice was not responded to. Finally, on 13-9-69, the respondent filed the present suit seeking arrears of rent and eviction from the suit property.
(3.)The defence of the appellant was that he was not aware of the settlement deed of Saradammal in favour of the respondent and which he described to have been executed in secrecy. The case further pleaded was that he was not aware as to whom he had to pay rent but he was otherwise ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent at all times. Besides, he pleaded that he was a protected cultivating tenant and had the protection under The Madras Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act and on that basis the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.