Venkatrayar Vs. Jamboo Ayyan

Venkatrayar vs Jamboo Ayyan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 25, 1892

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/782270

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/782270
Court: Chennai
Judge: Muttusami Ayyar and ;Parker, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 25, 1892
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Appeal from insolvency order - Code of Civil Procedure--Act XIV of 1882, Sections 588 (17) 589--Act VII of 1888, Section 56--Act X of 1888, Section 3, Clause (a). - - The section thus modified failed, however, to provide for cases in which orders in insolvency matters were passed by Courts of Small Causes, and by ...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Venkatrayar

Respondent

Jamboo Ayyan

Legal References

Reported In: (1894)ILR17Mad377

Excerpt

appeal from insolvency order - code of civil procedure--act xiv of 1882, sections 588 (17) 589--act vii of 1888, section 56--act x of 1888, section 3, clause (a). - - the section thus modified failed, however, to provide for cases in which orders in insolvency matters were passed by courts of small causes, and by section 3, act x of 1888, it was provided that an appeal from an order specified in section 588, clause 17, should lie (a) to the district court when the order was passed by a court subordinate to that court;.....orders specified under section 588, clause 17, lay in all cases to the high court. this was modified by act vii of 1888, in which the court to hear the appeal in the suit was made the court to hear the appeal against the orders in insolvency matters. the section thus modified failed, however, to provide for cases in which orders in insolvency matters were passed by courts of small causes, and by section 3, act x of 1888, it was provided that an appeal from an order specified in section 588, clause 17, should lie (a) to the district court when the order was passed by a court subordinate to that court; and (b) to the high court in any other case.3. the question, therefore, is whether clause (a) operates to transfer the jurisdiction from the high court to the district court, in cases in which the subject-matter of the suit is over rs. 5,000 in value. section 2 of the code of civil procedure makes a subordinate court subordinate both to the high court and the district court, but the civil courts act gives the appellate jurisdiction exclusively to the high court in suits in which the subject-matter is over rs. 5,000 in value. bearing in mind that section 589 of the code of civil procedure was passed to regulate the appellate jurisdiction in appeals from orders, we are of opinion that the words 'court subordinate to that court' must be construed with reference to its appellate jurisdiction. it would be anomalous that a district court should have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such orders when it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal in the suit itself, and the first clause in the section points to an intention to give jurisdiction in insolvency matters to the ordinary appellate forum.4. we must set aside the order of the district court and direct that the appeal be returned to the party for presentation in the high court. appellant is entitled to his costs in this appeal, but we make no order as to costs in the court below, since the point was not taken there.

Full Judgment

1. The question before us is whether the appeal lies to the District Court or to the High Court. The suit in which the order was passed was one in which the subject-matter was over Rs. 5,000 in value and the appeal in the suit therefore lay to the High Court.

2. As Section 589 of the Code of Civil Procedure was first enacted, appeals from orders specified under Section 588, Clause 17, lay in all cases to the High Court. This was modified by Act VII of 1888, in which the Court to hear the appeal in the suit was made the Court to hear the appeal against the orders in insolvency matters. The section thus modified failed, however, to provide for cases in which orders in insolvency matters were passed by Courts of Small Causes, and by Section 3, Act X of 1888, it was provided that an appeal from an order specified in Section 588, Clause 17, should lie (a) to the District Court when the order was passed by a Court subordinate to that Court; and (b) to the High Court in any other case.

3. The question, therefore, is whether Clause (a) operates to transfer the jurisdiction from the High Court to the District Court, in cases in which the subject-matter of the suit is over Rs. 5,000 in value. Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes a Subordinate Court subordinate both to the High Court and the District Court, but the Civil Courts Act gives the appellate jurisdiction exclusively to the High Court in suits in which the subject-matter is over Rs. 5,000 in value. Bearing in mind that Section 589 of the Code of Civil Procedure was passed to regulate the appellate jurisdiction in appeals from orders, we are of opinion that the words 'Court subordinate to that Court' must be construed with reference to its appellate jurisdiction. It would be anomalous that a District Court should have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such orders when it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal in the suit itself, and the first clause in the section points to an intention to give jurisdiction in insolvency matters to the ordinary appellate forum.

4. We must set aside the order of the District Court and direct that the appeal be returned to the party for presentation in the High Court. Appellant is entitled to his costs in this appeal, but we make no order as to costs in the Court below, since the point was not taken there.

Same Parties Venkatrayar vs Jamboo Ayyan Same Subject Civil Same Judge Muttusami Ayyar and ;Parker, JJ.

Civil