Narayanan Vs. Narayanan and ors.

Narayanan vs Narayanan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 08, 1891

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784589

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/784589
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Wilkinson, J.
Decided On: Oct 08, 1891
Subject: Property;Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Courts Act (Madras) - Act III of 1873, Section 12--Jurisdiction--Valuation of relief--Suit for partition. -

Key legal issue: Property;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayanan

Respondent

Narayanan and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Vydinatha v. Subramanya I.L.R.
Reported In: (1892)ILR15Mad69

Excerpt

civil courts act (madras) - act iii of 1873, section 12--jurisdiction--valuation of relief--suit for partition. - 1. we think that we should follow the principle laid down in krishnasami v. kanakasabdi i.l.r. 14 mad. 183 and other cases instead of that laid down in vydinatha v. subramanya i.l.r. 8 mad. 235 on the ground that when the varanasi illom became extinct, there were, according to plaintiff's' own case, only two illoms entitled to share in the property of the extinct illom. the value of the suit is, therefore, the value of the share claimed, and the appeal lies to the district court. we return the appeal to be presented in the proper court. appellant must pay respondents' costs in this court.

Full Judgment

1. We think that we should follow the principle laid down in Krishnasami v. Kanakasabdi I.L.R. 14 Mad. 183 and other cases instead of that laid down in Vydinatha v. Subramanya I.L.R. 8 Mad. 235 on the ground that when the Varanasi illom became extinct, there were, according to plaintiff's' own case, only two illoms entitled to share in the property of the extinct illom. The value of the suit is, therefore, the value of the share claimed, and the appeal lies to the District Court. We return the appeal to be presented in the proper Court. Appellant must pay respondents' costs in this Court.

Same Parties Narayanan vs Narayanan and ors. Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Wilkinson, J.

Property;Civil