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

2012 Supreme(Ker) 545

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, K.VINOD CHANDRAN
P. V. Anitha – Appellant
Versus
Naduvile Veettil Ashok Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M.V. Amaresan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. This unnumbered matter is sent up noticing it as defective. It is filed as an appeal invoking Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against an order passed on an original petition filed before the Munsiff’s Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1921. An appeal is provided for against such an order, under that Act. No appeal lies against such an order under section 96 CPC.

2. The application from which this appeal arises could have been filed before the Munsiff’s court only by recourse to Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, in terms of which, the State Government has invested other courts with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge. Appeal against an order on such an application would lie only under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 388 of that Act. An appeal under that proviso, against an order passed by a court inferior to the court of a District Judge but invested with the power by the State Government by notification, would lie only to the District Judge. The jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal is not to be considered on the basis of any pecuniary limit.

3. For the aforesaid reasons


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