Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Thirtha Swami Vs. Thirtha Swami and ors.

Thirtha Swami vs Thirtha Swami and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 16, 1901
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/774081

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thirtha Swami

Respondent

Thirtha Swami and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
(1902)12MLJ34

Excerpt

- 1. a preliminary objection has been raised as to whether an appeal lies under the letters patent against the order of benson, j. as the effect of that order refusing to receive the sum ordered to be paid as security, would be to finally deprive the appellant of the power of prosecuting his appeal, we consider that the order of mr. justice benson amounts to a judgment within the meaning of section 15 of the letters patent and that there is consequently an appeal against it. as the order of mr. justice boddam ordering security to be furnished was indefinite in that it did not fix an exact date on or before winch security was to be given, we consider that the sum tendered to this court as security should have been received. we accordingly direct that the same be received provided it be tendered in cash to the registrar of this court on or before the 20th instant and the time for furnishing security is extended to that day. the advocate-general on behalf of the appellant states that he does not wish to prosecute appeal no. 227 of 1900 against the legal representative of the 1st respondent.2. the parties will bear their own costs of this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. A preliminary objection has been raised as to whether an appeal lies under the Letters Patent against the order of Benson, J. As the effect of that order refusing to receive the sum ordered to be paid as security, would be to finally deprive the appellant of the power of prosecuting his appeal, we consider that the order of Mr. Justice Benson amounts to a judgment within the meaning of Section 15 of the Letters Patent and that there is consequently an appeal against it. As the order of Mr. Justice Boddam ordering security to be furnished was indefinite in that it did not fix an exact date on or before winch security was to be given, we consider that the sum tendered to this Court as security should have been received. We accordingly direct that the same be received provided it be tendered in cash to the Registrar of this Court on or before the 20th instant and the time for furnishing security is extended to that day. The Advocate-General on behalf of the appellant states that he does not wish to prosecute appeal No. 227 of 1900 against the legal representative of the 1st respondent.

2. The parties will bear their own costs of this appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial