Skip to content


The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the District Forest Officer Vs. Vadamalai Pillai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1893)3MLJ231
AppellantThe Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the District Forest Officer
RespondentVadamalai Pillai and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....whom government may appoint to hear such appeals. the district court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.2. it is contended on behalf of respondent that if the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, this court is equally without jurisdiction to hear this second appeal. this by no means follows. the existence of the district courts' decree in a case of this kind is sufficient to justify the entertainment by this court of a second appeal to consider the question whether the lower court had, or had not jurisdiction.3. we set aside the lower courts' decree and direct respondent to pay appellant's costs in this and in the lower appellate court.in s. a. no. 110 of 18914. the judge's finding is that the possession of the appellant has not been such as to give him.....
Judgment:

In 8. A. No. 109 of 1891

1. This appeal has reference to trees standing on land the claim to which had been adjudicated by the Forest Settlement officer [under Section 11 of the Madras Forest Act No. V of 1882. The appeal in such cases lies to the Forest Court or, where no such court is constituted, to an officer of the Revenue Department whom Government may appoint to hear such appeals. The District Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

2. It is contended on behalf of respondent that if the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, this Court is equally without jurisdiction to hear this second appeal. This by no means follows. The existence of the District Courts' decree in a case of this kind is sufficient to justify the entertainment by this Court of a second appeal to consider the question whether the lower court had, or had not jurisdiction.

3. We set aside the lower courts' decree and direct respondent to pay appellant's costs in this and in the lower appellate court.

In S. A. No. 110 of 1891

4. The judge's finding is that the possession of the appellant has not been such as to give him a title to the land. Respondents' Vakil admits that this is a finding of fact which cannot be got over in second appeal. It follows that this appeal must be allowed and the lower appellate court's decree being set aside, the order of the Forest Settlement officer restored with costs throughout. In his finding the judge refers to the claimant's rights to pasture cattle and to cut firewood. We desire not to be understood to express any opinion as to these rights which are of a kind specified under Section 11 of the Act.


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