High CourtsDivision Bench(1909) 04 MAD CK 0009

Parakandyilparkum Kishakkayil Urumi Koran and Others vs Kilath Puthiya Purayil Ahmad and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 21 April 1909 · Citation: 3 Ind. Cas. 41

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arnold White, C.J · Miller, J

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

5 paragraphs · 106 words
1.

We think the learned Judge was wrong in giving effect to the objection that the plaintiffs should have claimed possession. It seems to us, on the

facts, a declaration was the only relief it was open to them to claim. Although the Kanom was granted to a stranger, the 1st defendant, never

parted with possession. We think the decision in Padammah v. Themana Ammah 17 M.k 322 applies. We must set aside the decree of the lower

appellate Court, and send hack the case to be disposed of according to law. Costs will abide the result.

2.

The memorandum of objection is dismissed with costs.