9911796707
TMI Blog1915 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. As regards plot B the District Judge has not come to any definite conclusion. If the 3rd defendant was a lessee to plant casuarina trees under defendants Nos. 1 and 2 before they sold the land to the plaintiff, his rights should be safeguarded. We must ask the District Judge to give a finding upon the following issues: (1) Whether there was a valid and subsisting lease to the 3rd defendant wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of land for planting casuarina trees is not an agricultural lease to which Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply.] 5. The second appeal then came on for further hearing on the 8th April 1915. 6. Mr. T. R. Ramachandra Iyer, for the Appellant, contended that the lease was for an agricultural purpose. 7. [Mr. Venkataraghavachariyar, for the Respondent, pointed out that the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, hold that there was no valid lease when defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sold the property to the plaintiff. 11. A further question was raised that the suit for a bare declaration is not maintainable. The District Munsif found that the 3rd defendant was in possession at the date of the suit: and he referred to a certain admitted act of possession by the 3rd defendant in September 1910. The Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calling for the finding was ultra vires. Peria Krishnasami Naik v. Aiyappa Naik 24 Ind. Cas. 924 : 1 L.W. 376. It is quite competent to this Bench to go behind the order calling for finding. Durga Chowdhrani v. Jewahir Singh 18 C.P 23 : 17 I.A. 122; Lukhi Narain Jagadeb v. Jodu Nath Deo 21 C.P 504 : 21 I.A. 39; Shivabasava v. Sangappa 29 B.P 1 : 8 C.W.N. 865 : 1 A.L.J. 637 : 6 Bom. L.R. 770 : Bho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
