Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Gottimukkala China Somaraju vs Srimat Surangam Nallani … on 26 February, 1915
Equivalent citations: 29 Ind Cas 574
Bench: S Nair, Tyabji


JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 12 of the Rent Recovery Act. The learned District Judge has found that the tenancy of the appellant was from year to year. We are not prepared to say that, in deciding this question of fact the learnedj Judge has committed any such error as can be corrected in second appeal, and accept that finding. He has also found that there was in effect oral notice to quit at the time when the tenant was wrongfully ejected. On these findings the tenant was entitled to be in possession for a year after the period when he was ejected, and the learned Judge’s decree giving one year’s mesne profits as damages in lieu of possession is, therefore, quite correct.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Loading Facebook Comments ...
Loading Disqus Comments ...