High Courts(1902) 02 MAD CK 0019

Chalaban Tholan and Another vs Kunhambu

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 February 1902 · Citation: (1902) ILR (Mad) 669 : (1902) 12 MLJ 406

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 253 words
1.

The petitioners are agricultural tenants of some lands for paddy cultivation and the respondent is a subsequent lessee under the landlord of the

right to dig up and take shells from the holding without causing any detriment to the use of the land for agricultural purposes by the tenants. It is

found that the agricultural tenants dug up a. large quantity of shells and converted them to their own use. But they have not alleged or proved any

local custom entitling them to do so. Tucker v. Linger L.R. 8 A.C. 508 Whether the tenant was or was not justified in digging up shells for

cultivating the land properly and in a husband-like manner, the property in the shells is not in him but in the landlord or rather the plaintiff-

respondent, the assignee of the landlord Tucker v. Linger 8 A.C. 508Elwes v. Briggs Gas Co. 33 Ch. D. 562. In the absence of a local custom,

the defendants had not a right to convert the shells which they dug up to their own use. Section 43, Civil Procedure Code, is, in our opinion, no bar

to any portion of the claim made in this suit, for it is admitted that even such portion was on the holding where it was stored up at the date of the

former suit for injunction, but was removed and converted by the defendants to their own use only subsequent to the former suit.

2.

The revision petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.