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.

Visvanathan Chetti Vs. Ramanathan Chetti and ors.

Visvanathan Chetti vs Ramanathan Chetti and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 24, 1901
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/783927

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;Limitation

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code - Act XIV of 1882, Sections 205, 622--Omission in judgment--Decree in conformity with judgment--Amendment of decree under Section 206--Remedy by appeal--Inadmissibility of revision petition--Limitation Act---Act XV of 1877, Section 5. -

Key legal issue
Civil;Limitation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Visvanathan Chetti

Respondent

Ramanathan Chetti and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Mania Ray v. Raghunandan Singh I.L.R.
Reported In
(1901)ILR24Mad646

Excerpt

civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, sections 205, 622--omission in judgment--decree in conformity with judgment--amendment of decree under section 206--remedy by appeal--inadmissibility of revision petition--limitation act---act xv of 1877, section 5. - 1. it was open to the petitioner, relying on the second paragraph of section 5 of the limitation act, to appeal under section 540 of the code of civil procedure against the decree as amended, notwithstanding the expiration of one month from the data when the decree was passed. this being so, we are of opinion that a petition under section 622 of the code of civil procedure complaining of the variance of the decree is not admissible. mr. justice mahmood in discussing the question in mania ray v. raghunandan singh i.l.r. 7 all. 282 overlooks the possibility of an appeal against the decree as amended, and for that reason comes to the conclusion that section 622 of the code of civil procedure must be applied. it must be admitted that mr. justice mahmood's view has been followed in one or two cases in this court, but no repotted case is cited in which a bench of judges has held that an appeal against the amended decree will not lie.2. we dismiss the petition with costs.

Full Judgment

1. It was open to the petitioner, relying on the second paragraph of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to appeal under Section 540 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree as amended, notwithstanding the expiration of one month from the data when the decree was passed. This being so, we are of opinion that a petition under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure complaining of the variance of the decree is not admissible. Mr. Justice Mahmood in discussing the question in Mania Ray v. Raghunandan Singh I.L.R. 7 All. 282 overlooks the possibility of an appeal against the decree as amended, and for that reason comes to the conclusion that Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be applied. It must be admitted that Mr. Justice Mahmood's view has been followed in one or two cases in this Court, but no repotted case is cited in which a Bench of Judges has held that an appeal against the amended decree will not lie.

2. We dismiss the petition with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial