SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 248

B.N.KIRPAL, N.P.SINGH, J.S.VERMA
Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avargal – Appellant
Versus
T. Parvathi Ammal – Respondent


Order

The only question for decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit which was filed by the respondents. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The First appellate Court set aside the decree taking the view that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred. In the second appeal filed by the present respondents, the High Court has restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court taking the view that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was not barred.

2. The plea of exclusion of the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to adjudi­cate the title of the parties in the present case is based on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. This Court in a recent decision in R. Manicka­naicker v. E. Elumalainaicker1, has clearly held that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate title to the parties, is not barred by virtue of the provisions of the said Act. This is a direct decision of this Court on the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deeshithulu & Ors.2. It is


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top