AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
District Judge is in error in holding that the attachment proceedings cannot be taken where the rent is payable in kind. The appeals however fail
on other ground. We agree with the District Judge in holding that an appeal by way of a summary suit presented against an attachment u/s 40 of the
Kent Recovery Act (Act VIII of 1885) is within time if presented within 30 days. No doubt in Section 40 the word used is ""month."" But that
section must be read with Section 51 which lays down that summary suits under the Act must be presented within 30 days. We think that the
reasonable construction is to hold that the term month in Section 40 WHS intended to he an equivalent to the period ""of 30 days as provided for in
respect of all summary suits in Section 51, It was next urged for the appellant that the attachment should be upheld to the extent of the rent actually
in arrear in accordance with the puttas now upheld. This contention cannot be accepted. Under the recent Full Bench ruling the appellant has to
tender a patta according to the final decision before he can proceed to enforce the terms of the tenancy. Therefore the ruling in Ramachandra v.
Narayansami ILR Mad. 229 (assuming it has not been overruled by the Full Bench ruling referred to) cannot be held to apply. We must
accordingly dismiss these second appeals with costs.