High Courts(1897) 04 MAD CK 0014

Pichuvayyan vs Vilakudiyan

Madras High Court · Decided on 6 April 1897 · Citation: (1898) ILR (Mad) 134 : (1897) 7 MLJ 196

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

6 paragraphs · 131 words
1.

Blacksmiths'' and carpenters'' nams are within the purview of Regulation VI of 1831 (Letter from Sadar Adalat to Government, dated 30th June

1852, and Palamalai Padayachi v. Shanmuga Asari I.L.R(1894) . M. 302. The plaintiff did not allege in his plaint a title by adverse possession for

over 12 years, nor was there any issue on such plea. Moreover as the plaintiff could have sued only under Regulation VI of 1831 in a Eevenue

Court, but not in a Civil Court for recovery of the inam land and as the Indian Limitation Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for suits

under the Regulation, the plaintiff could not u/s 28 of the Act acquire a title by prescription.

2.

The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.