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

1918 Supreme(Mad) 96

J.WALLIS
Samanthala Koti Reddi – Appellant
Versus
Pothuri Subbiah – Respondent


JUDGMENT

John Wallis, C.J.

1. As observed by Seshagiri Aiyar, J. in his order of reference the point for decision is whether in consequence of his want of bona fides the first defendant forfeited his right to notice before suit under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the referring Judges were of opinion that the act done by the defendant came within the words "any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. "These words were introduced into Section 424 of the Code of 1877 by Act XII of 1879, and the corresponding Section 80 of the present Code was further amended by substituting "any" for " an " and ",such public officer" for "him". According to the concise Oxford Dictionary recently published at the Clarendon Press, to "purport" in this context means to "be intended to seem". There can be no doubt that the act of the Village Munsif in handing over the surplus proceeds of the revenue sale to the defaulting owner was an act "intended to seem" to be done by him in his official capacity so as to render notice of suit necessary, if effect is to be given to the language of the section according to the natural meaning of the words used, The legi















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