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

1931 Supreme(Mad) 187

CURGENVEN
V. K. Kunju Kombi Achan – Appellant
Versus
Ammu alias Parvathi Neithiar – Respondent


ORDER

Curgenven, J.

1. The appellant (1st defendant) in Second Appeal No. 521 of 1930 is the karnavan of a Malabar tarwad. I have to dispose of two applications by junior members of the tarwad to be impleaded in the second appeal as supplemental 2nd and 3rd appellants. A prayer is added that the present appellant, the karnavan, should be removed or converted into a respondent. That prayer is, however, superfluous, because the karnavan himself has applied to withdraw his second appeal. The question is whether the two applications to add the junior members as parties should be granted in view of this latter circumstance. It is no doubt true that, when an appellant desires to withdraw his appeal or a plaintiff his suit, the opposing party cannot resist such an application; nor would the Court be justified in disallowing it. This has been held in Ram Churn Bysack v. Ripsimah Harmi (1867) 10 W.R. 373 and Mahant Biharidasji v. Parshotamdas I.L.R. (1908) 32 B. 345. The former case is also authority for the position that the Court upon such an application being made is immediately deprived of authority to entertain the claim and it can thenceforth only deal with the question of costs. It app

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