AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We think the conclusion the learned Chief Justice has arrived at is correct. Pattah for the suit fasli was tendered before the judgment of the High
Court-. Exhibit C-was pronounced. As the pattah tendered was not in accordance with the judgment of the High Court the plaintiff could not
successfully maintain a suit for rent upon it and he could not tender a fresh pattah as the fasli had by then expired. His only course in this case was
to sue u/s 9 of Act VIII of 1865 to enforce acceptance of the paltah tendered. This he did do and he had to await an adjudication u/s 10 of the
Act, and we think that limitation runs from the date of that adjudication, as it was only then that it can be said that the rent for the suit fasli was
ascertained-Rangayya Appa Rao v. Bobba Sriramulu ILR (1903) Mad. 143 We express no opinion as to the effect of the High Court''s judgment
in the case of faslis subsequent thereto.
The appeals are dismissed with costs.