Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Phillips, Krishnan
Bogisetti Akka Nagamma
Versus
Panganama Krishna Rao And Anr.
Decided On : 27 January, 1919
Legal Framework: Conflict of Laws - Different laws in different provinces - Influence on court's decision
Fact of the Case:
The court recognized the difference in laws on a specific point in different provinces and refused to apply a precedent from another province due to conflicting rulings in the current province.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the precedent from another province was opposed to the ruling of the Full Bench of the current Court, and therefore, it refused to apply it.
Issues: Recognition of different laws in different provinces, conflict of precedents, application of precedent from another province
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the recognition of conflicting rulings in the current province and the opposition of the precedent from another province to the ruling of the Full Bench of the current Court.
Final Decision: The plaintiff was entitled to a decree against his mortgagors for 1/3rd share of the property mortgaged, and the time for payment was extended to three months from the date of the judgment.
1. The second of the oases relied on by the District Judge, Luchhman Prasad v. Sarnam, Singh 40 Ind. Cas. 281 : 39 A. 500 : 15 A.L.J. 581 : 2 P.L.W. 29 : 21 C.W.N. 990 : 33 M.L.T. 39 : 19 Bom. L.R. 646 : 26 C.L.J. 97 : (1917) M.W.N. 516 : 6 L.W. 334 : 44 I.A. 163 (P.C.), was decided with reference to the law in Allahabad, and in Anant Ram v. Collector of Etah 44 Ind. Cas. 290 : 34 M.L.J. 291 at p. 293 : 7 L.W. 323 : 4 P.L.W. 226 : 16 A.L.J 245 : 23 M.L.T. 228 : 22 C.W.N. 484 : 27 C.L.J. 363 : 20 Bom. L.R. 621: 40 A. 171 : (1918) M.W.N. 446 (P.C.), the Judicial Committee in referring to the same case quote it as being authority for that province.
2. The fact that the law on this point is different in Madras and Bombay from the law in Allahabad and Calcutta was recognised by the Privy Council so long ago as Lakskman Dada Naik v. Ramchandra Dada Naik 5 B. 48 : 7 T.A. 181 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 173 : 3 Suth. P.G.J. 778 : 3 Shome. L.R. 217 : 4 Ind. Jur. 472 : 7 C.L.R. 320 : 3 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 34 (P.C) and Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh 5 C. 148 : 6 I.A. 88 : 4. Sar. P.C.J. 1 : 3 Suth. P.C.J. 589 : 4 R. 226 : 2 Shome L.R. 242 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 705 (P.C.). This being so we are not prepared to apply Lachhman Prasad v. Sarpam Singh 40 Ind. Cas. 281 : 39 A. 500 : 15 A.L.J. 581 : 2 P.L.W. 29 : 21 C.W.N. 990 : 33 M.L.T. 39 : 19 Bom. L.R. 646 : 26 C.L.J. 97 : (1917) M.W.N. 516 : 6 L.W. 334 : 44 I.A. 163 (P.C.). as it is opposed to the ruling of the Fall Bench of this Court in Chinnu Pillai v. Kalimuthu Chetti 9 Ind. Cas 596 : 35 M. 47 : (1911) I.M.W.N. 238 : 9 M.L.T. 389 : 21 M.L.J. 246, which confirms the current of previous decisions in this Presidency. Under this ruling, plaintiff is entitled to a decree against his mortgagors 1/3 rd share of the property mortgaged and there will be a decree accordingly. Parties will pay and restive proportionate costs through-out, 1/3rd and 2/3rds.
3. Time for payment extended to three month from this date.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
