Gulam Mohideen Rowther vs Haruthammal on 18 January, 1894

Madras High Court
Gulam Mohideen Rowther vs Haruthammal on 18 January, 1894
Equivalent citations: (1895) 5 MLJ 57


1. It is objected that the suit was not cognizable by the Village Munsif as the claim is for rent of a house and therefore excluded by Clause 6 of Section 13 of the Village Munsif’s Act. The question is whether the phrase “rent for land” in the clause referred to includes house-rent as contended by petitioner. A grant of land, no doubt, includes a house standing on it. But I do not think the word “land” as used in the Act can be intended to include houses. As appears from Wharton’s Law Lexicon p. 418 it required special legislation in England to include houses in the word land as used in Acts of Parliament. The word is not defined in the Village Munsif’s Act or in the General Clauses Act.

2. I am unable to say that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the Village Munsif.

3. This petition is dismissed with costs.

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Your email address will not be published.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 *