Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)
Documents citing K.M.P.R. Kumarappa Chettiar And Anr. vs P.R.A.S. Andiappa Chettiar (Died) And ... on 17 January, 1958

Vasantha Ammal And Others vs Narasimha Naidu on 9 November, 1998

The learned trial Judge placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Kumaraya Chettiar and another v. Cheyyalakshmi and others, 1972 TLNJ 464 and the decision in Sujuit Kaur v. Garja Singh & others, 1994 (1) L.W. 38, held that mere living as husband and wife does not confer the status of husband and wife. Hence, he held that there is no evidence to show that the first petitioner was married to Duraisamy Naidu in the manner contemplated by law, and the other petitioners 2 to 4 also cannot be regarded as legal representatives of the deceased Duraisamy Naidu and the respondent Sankaran is the legal representative. In this view, he dismissed the three petitions filed by the petitioners and it is against the three orders, the present CRPs. have been filed.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shanmugathammal And Ors. Etc. vs Valliappan Alias Vallinayagam And Ors. on 27 October, 1970

8. Kumarappa Chettiar v. Audiappa Chettiar was also relied on in support. In that case Rajagopalan, J., had laid down that in order to entitle a person to apply for restoration to possession of land under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, he must be a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act which means that there should be the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In that case, the learned Judge was concerned with a person who was cultivating the lands under an agreement with some one who had no title to the land and who therefore, was not his landlord and he was therefore held to be not a cultivating tenant as defined in the Act and as such he was disentitled to seek restoration of possession Under Section 4 (5) of the Act when his possession was disturbed by the legal owner of the land. That decision also does not contemplate a situation arising herein. The mere fact that the landlord parts with his rights to an alienee without reference to the cultivating tenant, does not mean that the person who is a cultivating tenant under the transferor automatically ceases to come within the definition of a "cultivating tenant" under the Act. His status as a cultivating tenant cannot be taken away by such a transfer. The only difference brought about by the landlord's alienation of the property is to substitute a new landlord in his place. A cultivating tenant does not cease to get his benefits under the Act merely because the landlord has parted with his property. The statutory rights inhered in the cultivating tenant cannot be taken away by an unilateral Act of the landlord. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that once a landlord parts away with his rights, the rights of the tenant, if any, as a cultivating tenant under the Act would be taken away.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1