High CourtsDivision Bench(1914) 03 MAD CK 0019

Vavuttu Naicken vs Venkata Sesha Aiyar and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 20 March 1914 · Citation: AIR 1914 Mad 119(1) : 24 Ind. Cas. 806

HON’BLE JUDGES
Wallis, J · Sadasiva Aiyar, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

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

8 paragraphs · 193 words
1.

We think that the plaintiffs, who are some of the trustees of the Devastanam and are in management of some of the Devastanam properties and

have granted leases as such managers, are not entitled to sue the tenants without making the other, managers parties. See K. P. Kunna Pisharody

v. V. M. Narayanan Somayajipad 3 Ma. 234. As pointed out in that case, when a tenant has dealt with a co-owner as sole landlord he may, by so

dealing, be estopped from denying the title of the person who let him into possession. If the decision in Raja Ram v. Ram Roy 18 Ind. Cas. 77 : 24

M.L.J. 75 : 13 M.L.T. 106 : (1913) M.W.N. 176. goes further than this, we are unable with great respect to agree with it. No estoppel arises in

the present cast :. We must, therefore, allow the appeal and remand the case to the Court of first instance with a direction that the plaintiffs may be

afforded an opportunity of joining such of the other trustees as are willing as co-plaintiffs and the rest as defendants.

2.

Costs will be costs in the cause.