Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Section 1 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890
Ponnapalli Venkatappayya And Anr. vs Pushadapu Ramaswami And Ors. on 30 September, 1940
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court: reported in Venkatappayya v. Ramaswami, AIR 1941 Mad 36 (D) and the judge-ment of Vivian Bose J. reported in Ramnath v. Mohanlal, AIR 1939 Nag 23 (E). The Full Bench ruling does not help the respondent because in that case what was set aside was not a mere order in execution bat the very decree for eviction of the tenant obtained by the landlord.
Perumal Udayar And Anr. vs Krishnama Chettyar And Anr. on 6 March, 1894
In the Nagpur case reliance was placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court, reported in Perumal Udayar v. Krishnama Chettiar, ILR 17 Mad 251. (F), in which a purchaser who had entered into possession on the strength of a sale under the Revenue Recovery Act was hold to be in rightful possession until the sale was held to be irregular but was nevertheless held to be accountable for mesne profits for the entire period of his occupation. The principle underlying this decision as formulated by Vivian Bose J. is the one that I have extracted above. In both the Nagpur and Madras cases the auction-purchasers could trace their possession only to the auction sales, but in the present case the defendant traces his title to possession not merely to an execution order but to a decree anterior to that.
1