Skip to content


Sri Raja Row Venkatakumara Mahipati Suria Row Bahadur Raja of Pittapore Vs. Rajah Row Chellayyamma Garu, Widow of Late Rajah Suria Row Bahadur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1896)6MLJ624
AppellantSri Raja Row Venkatakumara Mahipati Suria Row Bahadur Raja of Pittapore
RespondentRajah Row Chellayyamma Garu, Widow of Late Rajah Suria Row Bahadur
Cases ReferredBalubhai Dayabhai v. Nasar Bai Abdul Habib Fazly. We
Excerpt:
- - if the legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the section, the language would have clearly indicated it.1. we are of opinion that section 4, 01. (b), act vii of' 1889 does not apply to applications to execute decrees which were pending at the date of the passing of the act, but refers to applications made after the act came into force.2. under section 6 of the general clauses act prima facie, the ac cannot affect pending proceedings. if the legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the section, the language would have clearly indicated it.3. the same view has been taken by the bombay high court in balubhai dayabhai v. nasar bai abdul habib fazly. we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that Section 4, 01. (b), Act VII of' 1889 does not apply to applications to execute decrees which were pending at the date of the passing of the Act, but refers to applications made after the Act came into force.

2. Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act prima facie, the Ac cannot affect pending proceedings. If the legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the section, the language would have clearly indicated it.

3. The same view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Balubhai Dayabhai v. Nasar Bai Abdul Habib Fazly. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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