AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 113 words
1.
A Kasavargam tenant has, according to Wilson (see Glossary), a proprietary right to his house and the Sudder Court ruled in Appa Pillai v.
Gopalasami Reddi (decision of 1860, page 41) that when ejected the Kasavargam tenant was entitled to compensation for his buildings. The
Munsif found this was a recognised principle and there was no denial that it was an incident of Kasavargam tenancy. The Judge agreed with the
Munsif; and as the decision is supported by express authority of old date, we have no doubt that it is correct in law. The amount granted as
compensation is not a question of law. The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.