Chidambram Pillai And Anr. vs Sabapathi Pillai on 19 February, 1891

Madras High Court
Chidambram Pillai And Anr. vs Sabapathi Pillai on 19 February, 1891
Equivalent citations: (1896) 6 MLJ 231


1. In this case the landlord’s title was denied; -and the circumstance that it was denied for the first time in the written statement is immaterial, The decisions in 2 Madras series Abdulla Rawutan v. Subbarayar (1878) I.L.R 2 M. 346 and 12 Madras series are not in point, inasmuch as in those cases, the right to demand rent was admitted though the precise nature of the holding was disputed. This case is governed by 2 M.H.C.E. 109, and by I.L.E. 9 B. 527. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.

NOTE.–See also Baba v. Visvanath Joshi I.L.R. 8 B. 228, in which it was held on the authority of Vivian v. Moat L.R. 16 Oh,. 730, that a tenant denying his landlord’s title in the course of the suit is not allowed to plead that he is entitled to notice. Woodfall’s Landlord and Tenant, 9th Ed; p. 325, Doed Trustees of the Bedford Charity v. Payne 7 Q.B. 287. Per contra. See Kali Krishna Tagore v. Golam Ally I.L.R. 13 0. 218. Paidal Kidavu v. Parakal Imbichunni Kidavu 1 M.H.G. R, 13.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *