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.

Ammunni Vs. Krishna

Ammunni vs Krishna

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 04, 1892
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/794443

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.

Succession Certificate Act - Act XXVII of 1860--Suit to set aside Certificate granted by the Resident at Cochin. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ammunni

Respondent

Krishna

Legal References

Reported In
(1893)ILR16Mad405

Excerpt

succession certificate act - act xxvii of 1860--suit to set aside certificate granted by the resident at cochin. - 1. the second defendant has not been made a party to this appeal, nor was he a party to the appeal to the district court, and the question which we have to decide is one arising between the plaintiff and the first defendant. the suit is virtually one to obtain a declaration as against the respondent that plaintiff is the legal representative of the deceased raman menon, and, as such, entitled, in preference to the respondent, to the certificate issued by the british resident under act xxvii of 1860 and to receive the interest due on the government securities. it is conceded that both parties are domiciled in native cochin. there can be no doubt that, if the respondent had collected any money due as interest on the government securities, a suit for money had and received would lie only in the courts of native cochin, though the money had been received in british territory. the question as to who is the legal representative of the deceased raman menon is a question which, as between appellant and respondent, can only be tried in the courts of native cochin. the suit was, to all intents and purposes, a suit to set aside a certificate of heirship granted by the political resident of cochin, and the secretary of state was a necessary party to such a suit, and the appeal in its present form cannot be supported. two courses were open to the appellant, either to establish his representative right in the courts of native cochin and then to apply to the resident for the issue of a certificate in his name, or to sue the government of india, making the respondent a party to the suit. we observe that under order xi, rule 1, clause (g) of the judicature act this is the course which would be obligatory in england. he has pursued neither of these courses. the second appeal cannot be supported and is dismisesd with costs.

Full Judgment

1. The second defendant has not been made a party to this appeal, nor was he a party to the appeal to the District Court, and the question which we have to decide is one arising between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The suit is virtually one to obtain a declaration as against the respondent that plaintiff is the legal representative of the deceased Raman Menon, and, as such, entitled, in preference to the respondent, to the certificate issued by the British Resident under Act XXVII of 1860 and to receive the interest due on the Government securities. It is conceded that both parties are domiciled in Native Cochin. There can be no doubt that, if the respondent had collected any money due as interest on the Government securities, a suit for money had and received would lie only in the Courts of Native Cochin, though the money had been received in British territory. The question as to who is the legal representative of the deceased Raman Menon is a question which, as between appellant and respondent, can only be tried in the Courts of Native Cochin. The suit was, to all intents and purposes, a suit to set aside a certificate of heirship granted by the Political Resident of Cochin, and the Secretary of State was a necessary party to such a suit, and the appeal in its present form cannot be supported. Two courses were open to the appellant, either to establish his representative right in the Courts of Native Cochin and then to apply to the Resident for the issue of a certificate in his name, or to sue the Government of India, making the respondent a party to the suit. We observe that under Order XI, Rule 1, Clause (g) of the Judicature Act this is the course which would be obligatory in England. He has pursued neither of these courses. The second appeal cannot be supported and is dismisesd with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial