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.

Jambuvayyan Vs. Venkatarayar

Jambuvayyan vs Venkatarayar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 03, 1895
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/782858

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.

Civil Procedure Code - Act XIV of 1882, Section 344--Insolvent judgment-debtor--Decree passed on appeal--Jurisdiction of original Court to make declaration of insolvency. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jambuvayyan

Respondent

Venkatarayar

Legal References

Reported In
(1896)ILR19Mad65

Excerpt

civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 344--insolvent judgment-debtor--decree passed on appeal--jurisdiction of original court to make declaration of insolvency. - 1. it is conceded that if the subordinate court had, in the first instance, decreed in plaintiff's favour, it would have had jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 341, but it is contended that it is otherwise, since the subordinate court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and the decree in his favour was passed by the appellate court.2. if this argument be valid, the jurisdiction of the subordinate court would also be ousted, if the plaintiff had obtained a decree in his favour in the first instance, and that decree had subsequently been confirmed on appeal, since the decree to be executed would be that of the appellate court.3. there can be no doubt that the subordinate court must execute the decree of an appellate court, reversing its own, and that in that respect it is regarded for all intents and purposes as the court which passed the decree.4. we think the order of the learned judge was right and dismiss this appeal with costs.

Full Judgment

1. It is conceded that if the Subordinate Court had, in the first instance, decreed in plaintiff's favour, it would have had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 341, but it is contended that it is otherwise, since the Subordinate Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and the decree in his favour was passed by the Appellate Court.

2. If this argument be valid, the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court would also be ousted, if the plaintiff had obtained a decree in his favour in the first instance, and that decree had subsequently been confirmed on appeal, since the decree to be executed would be that of the Appellate Court.

3. There can be no doubt that the Subordinate Court must execute the decree of an Appellate Court, reversing its own, and that in that respect it is regarded for all intents and purposes as the Court which passed the decree.

4. We think the order of the learned Judge was right and dismiss this appeal with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial