Chennai Court October 1928 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajah of Vizianagaram Vs. Penumetcha Appalaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.497
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff, the Rajah of Vizianagaram, is the appellant. He claimed rent from the defendant for the suit land in respect of Faslis 1332 to 1334 at the rate of Rs. 364-0-6 per Fasli, The defendant contended that he was liable to pay only at the rate of Rs. 239-15-5 and that the settlement rent at the higher figure is not binding on him. The plaintiff replied that the defendant was precluded from raising these pleas by virtue of the decision in S.S. No. 31 of 1920 which he contended would operate as res judicata between the parties. The two points for determination are (1) whether the prior decision in S.S. No. 31 of 1920 in favour of the higher rate claimed by the plaintiff is res judicata and : AIR1926Cal767 whether the settlement rent at the higher figure is binding on the defendant. On both these points the lower Courts found in favour of the defendant.2. I may state at once that the finding on second point that the settlement rent at the higher figure is not b...
(Nandigiri) Venkata Narasimharao and anr. Vs. (Nandigiri) Krishnabayam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad479
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. It has been held in Ponnuswami Asari v. Palaniandi Mudali [1920] 11 M.L.W. 602 that under Order 41, Rule 20, Civil P.C., a party to the suit may be added to the appeal, as respondent in order that a memorandum of objections may be filed against him. The question of the effect of limitation does not seem to have been raised and considered in that case, but a recent Privy Council decision in V.P.R.V. Chokalingam Chetty v. Seethai Achi has been brought to my notice in which it has been held that a defendant in respect of whom the plaintiff has allowed the dismissal of his suit to become time barred without making him a party to the appeal is no longer a person in the words of Order 41, Rule 20, Civil P.C. ' interested in the result of the appeal.' Beading the two cases together, I am inclined to the view that where, as here, a party has not filed an appeal against another party not himself an appellant, and the time for so doing has expired he cannot, under Order 41, ...
Nandiglri Venkata Narasimharao and anr. Vs. Nandagiri Krishnabayamma a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1928
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.369
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. It has been held in Ponnu-swami Asari v. Palaniandi Mudaliar 56 Ind. Cas. 612 : 11 L.W. 602 : 27 M.L.T. 266 that under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the suit may be added to the appeal, as respondent in order that a memorandum of objections may be filed against him. The question of the effect of limitation does not seem to have been raised and considered in that case, but a recent Privy Council decision in V.P.R.V. Chokalingam Chetty v. Seethai Ache has been brought to my notice in which it has been held that a defendant in respect of whom the plaintiff has allowed the dismissal of his suit to become time-barred without making him a party to the appeal is no longer a person in the words of Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 'interested in the result of the appeal.' Reading the two cases together I am inclined to the view that where, as here, a party has not filed an appeal against another party not himself an appellant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›