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

Madras High Court
Muthu Karuppa Kothan vs A. Sitha Viriyan Chetty on 15 February, 1909
Equivalent citations: 1 Ind Cas 644
Bench: R Benson, S Nair


1. The lower Courts have held that the present suit for possession is barred by the suit which was previously instituted by the same plaintiffs for mesne profits. Following the decisions in Gutta Saramma v. Maganti Raminedu 31 M. 405, and Tirupati v. Narasimha 11 M. 210, we are of opinion that the suit is not barred. It is unnecessary to decide whether there is any conflict between the decision in Tirupati v. Narasimha 11 M. 210 and that in Venkoba v. Subbanna 11 M. 151. The right to mesne profits may exist without any right to possession, and the cause of action sued on need not necessarily be one and the same. We set aside the decrees of the Courts be low, direct the Munsif to restore the suit to his file and proceed to dispose of it according to law. Costs will abide the result.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

103 queries in 0.159 seconds.