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.

Appa Rao Vs. Sobhanadri Rao

Appa Rao vs Sobhanadri Rao

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 31, 1899
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776426

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Jurisdiction - Allegation in plaint believed to have been falsely made in order to avoid jurisdiction of Small Cause Court--Procedure by Court. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appa Rao

Respondent

Sobhanadri Rao

Legal References

Reported In
(1901)ILR24Mad158

Excerpt

jurisdiction - allegation in plaint believed to have been falsely made in order to avoid jurisdiction of small cause court--procedure by court. - 1. as the district munsif thinks that the allegation in the plaint that the kattubadi is a charge on the land is a false allegation made for the purpose of avoiding the jurisdiction of the small cause court, we think that the proper course is to require the plaintiff to satisfy that court that the allegation is bona fide and not merely colourable in order to change the venue. the plaintiff may be required to adduce some decision of the courts, or some orders or reports of government or public authorities in which such a charge has been recognized, or, if the charge is a matter of contract, he may be required to produce any written or other evidence in support of the contract. if the court then thinks the allegation is made bona fide even though the court may not hold it to be actually proved, it should register the plaint on the original side and proceed to dispose of it according to law. otherwise the plaint should be registered by the district munsif and disposed of on the small cause side or returned to the party to be filed in the proper court as may be appropriate.

Full Judgment

1. As the District Munsif thinks that the allegation in the plaint that the kattubadi is a charge on the land is a false allegation made for the purpose of avoiding the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, we think that the proper course is to require the plaintiff to satisfy that Court that the allegation is bona fide and not merely colourable in order to change the venue. The plaintiff may be required to adduce some decision of the Courts, or some orders or reports of Government or public authorities in which such a charge has been recognized, or, if the charge is a matter of contract, he may be required to produce any written or other evidence in support of the contract. If the Court then thinks the allegation is made bona fide even though the Court may not hold it to be actually proved, it should register the plaint on the Original Side and proceed to dispose of it according to law. Otherwise the plaint should be registered by the District Munsif and disposed of on the Small Cause side or returned to the party to be filed in the proper Court as may be appropriate.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial