AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 106 words
Venkataramana Rao, J.—The only point urged by Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar is that his clients should have been given relief u/s 41 of the
Transfer of Property Act by non-suiting the plaintiff. I do not think this contention is tenable. u/s 41 it must be shown that the first defendant was
the ostensible owner with the consent express or implied of the person interested in the property. There is no evidence of tacit consent. The mere
fact that an entry was made in the Survey Register cannot be relied on as such consent. I therefore dismiss the second appeal with costs.
2.
Leave to appeal refused.