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.

Ramappaya and ors. Vs. Aithu Melanta and ors.

Ramappaya and ors. vs Aithu Melanta and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 18, 1910
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/814432

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 13 - Suit to recover property as trustee--Subsequent suit heirs after plaintiff's death--Res judicata. - T.N. DISTRICT POLICE ACT, 1859 [Act No. 24/1859]. Section 10 & Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 14(b), Clause (iv) Explanation (1); [A.P. S...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramappaya and ors.

Respondent

Aithu Melanta and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
7Ind.Cas.184

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 13 - suit to recover property as trustee--subsequent suit heirs after plaintiff's death--res judicata. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence. it is challenged only on the ground that it is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. but it is well settled that if a rule passes the twin tests of (i) being founded on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) such differentia having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, it cannot be said to be violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. the impugned rule creates a classification of persons, who were not involved in criminal cases and persons, who were involved in criminal cases. the object of creating such a classification is to ensure that only those persons, whose character and antecedents were beyond and shadow of doubt alone, are permitted entry into the police service of the state. the rule is only a reflection of the intention of the government to maintain purity of administration. the rule merely provides a check post or a filter point, to ensure that only those, who had a clean record of personal life, are admitted into the system. that the existing system, has already come under heavy dose of criticism, cannot be swept under the carpet. therefore, as an employer, the.....1. the plaintiffs' father sued as trustee to recover certain property which had been .sold in execution of a decree against his grandfather and the suit was dismissed as barred by section 244, civil procedure code. the plaintiffs, after their father's death, brought this suit as trustees to recover the same property. whether the plaintiffs succeeded their father as trustees or the trusteeship was joint family property of which the father was manager, in either case the decision in the previous suit concludes the plaintiffs. the second appeal is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. The plaintiffs' father sued as trustee to recover certain property which had been .sold in execution of a decree against his grandfather and the suit was dismissed as barred by Section 244, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs, after their father's death, brought this suit as trustees to recover the same property. Whether the plaintiffs succeeded their father as trustees or the trusteeship was joint family property of which the father was manager, in either case the decision in the previous suit concludes the plaintiffs. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial