Skip to content


Chintamallayya Vs. Thadi Gangireddi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1897)7MLJ61
AppellantChintamallayya
RespondentThadi Gangireddi
Cases ReferredHusamanna v. Linganna I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....objection that the subordinate judge had no jurisdiction, therefore, fails and this decision in the previous case must be held to be binding in the present suit.4. the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The argument is that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to enquire into the grounds or validity of the award apart from such grounds as would fall under Sections 520 and 521 of the Code of Civil Procedure, his authority being limited under Section 526 to the matters mentioned in those two Sections

2. It is true that different views of this matter have been taken by the different High Courts. In our opinion, the correct view is that held by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Amrit Ram v. Dasrat Ram I.L.R. (1894) A., 21. It is also in accordance with an opinion expressed by this Court so far back as 1881, in Miohraya v. Sadasiva Paramo I.L.R. (1881) M. 319, which we believe has always been acted on'. The weight due to that opinion and practice is not lessened by the fact that the decision in that case, so far as it relates to the right of appeal, has since been overruled in Husamanna v. Linganna I.L.R. (1895) M. 423. No doubt, Parker, J., has in this case expressed himself as inclined to take a different view, but we, however, are unable to do so.

3. The objection that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction, therefore, fails and this decision in the previous case must be held to be binding in the present suit.

4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //