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

1924 Supreme(Mad) 413

M.NAIR
Chinnammal – Appellant
Versus
Papathi Ammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. This is an application under Section 115 of the C.P.C. to revise an order made by the Subordinate Judge at Ootacamund granting permission to the respondent to sue in forma pauperis.

2. The respondent, Papathi Ammal, claimed certain properties with mesne profits on the ground that they belonged to her mother, Maruthayi (who died in 1904) as her stridhanam and that the decree in O.S. No. 91 of 1907, on the file of the Sub-Court at Ootacamund, which the present petitioner obtained against Maruthayis son in respect of the said properties and the purchase thereunder are not valid and binding on her. With a view to enforce her claim she filed O.P. No. 19 of 1919 on the file of the Sub-Court for permission to sue as a pauper. The present petitioner Chinnammal opposed this application (Exhibit II). On the 30th of March, 1920 when the petition came on for hearing Papathi Ammal, the respondent, was absent and her Counsel stated that he had no instructions. The application was accordingly dismissed on the ground of her absence (Exhibit III). It is not clear from the records before me if Chinnammal or her Counsel was present on the occasion.

3. After the lapse of more








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