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

1920 Supreme(Mad) 136

COUTTS-TROTTER, W.AYLING
Tangutoori Kodandaramayya – Appellant
Versus
Tangutoori Ramalingayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

William Ayling, J.

1. First respondent in this case was appointed Karnam of the grouped village of Vallur in the Venkatagiri Zemindari by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 15(3) of Act II of 1894. He sued for a declaration that he was the legally appointed Karnam and for an injunction restraining first defendant (the proprietor of the estate) and second defendant (the person appointed as Karnam by the first defendant) from interfering with his tenure of office. The District Munsif decreed the suit as prayed for. The Subordinate Judge set aside the injunction but confirmed the declaration.

2. In second appeal Mr. Krishnasawmy Aiyar has argued, (1) that plaintiff not being in possession of the office his suit is not maintainable under Section 42, Specific Relief Act; (2) that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred by Section 21 of Madras Act III of 1895.

3. The first objection may be summarily disposed of. The Subordinate Judge finds that at the date of suit plaintiff was in possession of the office; and his finding must be accepted. We may remark that most of the evidence to which Mr. Krishnasawmy Aiyar wished to refer us relates to proceedings after its institut









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