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.

Subba Sastri and ors. Vs. Balachandra Sastri and anr.

Subba Sastri and ors. vs Balachandra Sastri and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 13, 1894
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/789805

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, Sections 562, 588, 590, 591--Order of remand--Right of appeal. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subba Sastri and ors.

Respondent

Balachandra Sastri and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Rameshur Singh v. Sheodin Singh I.L.R.
Reported In
(1895)ILR18Mad421

Excerpt

civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, sections 562, 588, 590, 591--order of remand--right of appeal. - 1. we are of opinion that the order of remand passed by the district judge in appeal no. 72 of 1892 was illegal. the suit had not been decided by the district munsif upon any preliminary point; on the contrary he had decided all the six issues framed; and if he had based his judgment upon evidence improperly taken, it was open to the district judge to exclude that evidence or to call for or take further evidence.2. it is open to the appellants to take this objection now, although they might have appealed against the order of remand section 591, code of civil procedure; see also savitri v. ramji i.l.r. 14 bom. 2323. the order having been ultra vires, the subsequent proceedings are also ultra vires and must be treated as non-existent--rameshur singh v. sheodin singh i.l.r. 12 all. 5104. we must set aside the decree of the subordinate judge and the second decree of the district munsif and remand the original appeal no. 72 of 1892 to the file of the district court of tanjore to be disposed of according to law.5. the costs hitherto incurred will abide the event.

Full Judgment

1. We are of opinion that the order of remand passed by the District Judge in Appeal No. 72 of 1892 was illegal. The suit had not been decided by the District Munsif upon any preliminary point; on the contrary he had decided all the six issues framed; and if he had based his judgment upon evidence improperly taken, it was open to the District Judge to exclude that evidence or to call for or take further evidence.

2. It is open to the appellants to take this objection now, although they might have appealed against the order of remand Section 591, Code of Civil Procedure; see also Savitri v. Ramji I.L.R. 14 Bom. 232

3. The order having been ultra vires, the subsequent proceedings are also ultra vires and must be treated as non-existent--Rameshur Singh v. Sheodin Singh I.L.R. 12 All. 510

4. We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and the second decree of the District Munsif and remand the Original Appeal No. 72 of 1892 to the file of the District Court of Tanjore to be disposed of according to law.

5. The costs hitherto incurred will abide the event.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial