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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 82

RAMESAM
Subramanya Ayyar – Appellant
Versus
Swaminatha Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Ramesam, J.

1. The facts of this appeal may be stated as follows: One Swaminatha Chettiar brought a suit on the foot of a simple mortgage in O.S. 33 of 1921 on the file of the Subordinate-Court of Negapatam and obtained a decree for sale. The properties directed to be sold consisted of items in three schedules. Those in Sch A and Schedule C are situated in Pattukotta taluk which was then within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Tanjore. Those in Schedule B are situated in the Mannargudi taluk which was then within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam. As some of the properties were within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam the suit was rightly instituted there. While the suit was pending: a notification, dated September 1921, was issued by which the district of Tanjore was divided into two districts, East. Tanjore and West Tanjore. The jurisdictions of the Subordinate Courts were, re-arranged, and under this re-arrangement the Mannargudi taluk also came within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Tanjore. Thus, as a result of the notification, all the properties were within the Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of















































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