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

1942 Supreme(Mad) 355

HAPPELL
The Province of Madras, represented by the District Collector of Vizagapatam – Appellant
Versus
Sri Sri Sri Vikrama Deo Varma Maharajulungaru, Maharaja of Jeypore and Zamindar of Madgole – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Happell, J.

1. These eleven revision petitions arise out of eleven suits brought by Sri Sri Sri Vikrama Deo Varma Maharajulungaru, Maharaja of Jeypore and Zamindar of Madgole, under Section 14 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. In all these suits the Province of Madras represented by the District Collector of Vizagapatam was the first defendant and the first defendant is the petitioner in each of these eleven revision petitions. The petitioners contended in all the suits that at any rate as against them the suit should be dismissed in limine for the reason that the two months notice of suit as required by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code had not been served on them. The learned District Munsiff tried this question as a preliminary issue and found that all the suits were maintainable as against the Provincial Government. There were really two questions decided by the learned District Munsiff. The first was whether in the circumstances of the case the two months notice was required at all under Section 80 of the Code, and the second whether, if notice in accordance with the provisions of that section was necessary, the two months notice had, in fact, been given. In










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