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.

Venkatamma Vs. Chengalrayappa

Venkatamma vs Chengalrayappa

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 08, 1884
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778744

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.

Act XXVII of 1860 - Certificate granted--Cancellation--Power of District Court. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Venkatamma

Respondent

Chengalrayappa

Legal References

Cases Referred
Nanuk Pershad v. Lalla Nitya Lall I.L.R.
Reported In
(1883)ILR7Mad556

Excerpt

act xxvii of 1860 - certificate granted--cancellation--power of district court. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j. and hutchins, j.1. we agree with the high court of calcutta in nanuk pershad v. lalla nitya lall i.l.r. 6 cal. 40 that the act xxvii of 1860 gives the judge no power to cancel the certificate, though, with all respect for the learned judges who heard that case, we cannot convince ourselves that the judge would have power, independently of the act, to cancel the certificate, otherwise than on review. the question then arises whether we can entertain an appeal from the order.2. it appears that the application was presented as an appeal, but that the learned judge, who admitted it, directed that it should be amended and received as an application under section 622 of the code of civil procedure.3. in our judgment an appeal lay under the general provisions of the procedure code, and, treating this as an appeal, we set aside the order of the judge and direct the respondent to bear the appellant's costs.

Full Judgment

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Hutchins, J.

1. We agree with the High Court of Calcutta in Nanuk Pershad v. Lalla Nitya Lall I.L.R. 6 Cal. 40 that the Act XXVII of 1860 gives the Judge no power to cancel the certificate, though, with all respect for the learned Judges who heard that case, we cannot convince ourselves that the Judge would have power, independently of the Act, to cancel the certificate, otherwise than on review. The question then arises whether we can entertain an appeal from the order.

2. It appears that the application was presented as an appeal, but that the learned Judge, who admitted it, directed that it should be amended and received as an application under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. In our judgment an appeal lay under the general provisions of the Procedure Code, and, treating this as an appeal, we set aside the order of the Judge and direct the respondent to bear the appellant's costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial