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

1933 Supreme(Mad) 55

HORACE OWEN COMPTON BEASLEY, KT.
Appaji Reddiar – Appellant
Versus
Thailammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Jackson, J. The question raised here is whether that order which was one ordering the respondent in this appeal to be brought on the record as the legal representative of the deceased original appellant is an appealable order or not. In my view, it is not. Applying the test applied by Sir Arnold White, C.J., in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar (1910) Mad. 1 : 21 M.L.J. 1 this is certainly not an appealable order. That test has so often been referred to and I do not propose to re-state it here. I may however summarise my reasons for saying that this is an order which is not appealable. An order to be appealable must of course be a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In my view, this is not a judgment which finally settles the rights of parties but has the effect of allowing litigation which is proceeding further to proceed to a final adjudication. The facts of the case here are that the deceased original appellant filed this appeal and whilst it was pending died. Then an application was made to bring on record the respondent as her legal representative. The



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