LATIFA BI Vs. MOTTAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The City Civil Judge's order so far as he referred the petitioners to separate proceedings for a declaration that they were entitled to whatever rights their mother possessed at the time of her death from her status as tenant cannot be supported. They were entitled to have the question whether the interest of their mother had devolved on them decided by the Court to which they made their application. Another obstacle to appellants success however exists. The application was one under Section 9 by persons claiming to be tenants under Madras Act III of 1922. Sec. 9 speaks only of tenants "against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted.

(2.) In this case a decree was passed against petitioners mother in the City Civil Court on 13th August, 1920 and was confirmed on appeal in this Court on 7 February, 1922, that is, before the Act came into force.

(3.) The general frame of the Act, including Section 10, makes it clear that Section 9 was not intended to enable tenants to apply for sale of the land to them under this section after the ejectment suit, to which they were parties, had been decreed.