AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 189 wordsThe question is whether the right to improvements of a mulgeni tenant can be attached and sold in execution.
It is conceded that his rights are the same as the rights of a tenant in Malabar, and it has been held by this Court in Achuta v. Kali ILR (1884)
M. 454 and Eressa Menon v. Shamu Pattar ILR (1898) M. 138 that a right to compensation for improvements is merely an inchoate right which
only becomes perfected at eviction. It is a right to be enforced only at the time of eviction and the extent of the right is dependent on what may be
the relations between the landlord and the tenant at that time and also on the number and nature of the improvements in existence then. In the
present case the lease being permanent the right may never mature. This being so we must hold that such a right cannot be attached.
Whether individual improvements can be attached and sold is a question which does not arise in this case and need not be discussed.
The second appeal is dismissed with costs.