Dronam Raju Lakshmi Narasimha Row Pantulu Vs. Damoji Purappu Atchanna Pantulu and ors. - Court Judgment
|Appellant||Dronam Raju Lakshmi Narasimha Row Pantulu|
|Respondent||Damoji Purappu Atchanna Pantulu and ors.|
|Cases Referred||Shankara Bisto Nadgir v. Narsing Rao Ramachandra I.L.R.|
- 1. the ruling quoted, badhacharan v. man singh i.l.r. (1890) a. 392 has never been adopted in the courts either of this or of the other presidencies, see ramanadhaii chetti v. periatambi shervai i.l.r. (1883) m. 250; wajihan v. bishivanath i.l.r. (1887) b. 457 and rada krishen lall v. bada per shad singh i.l.r. (1891) c 462; shankara bisto nadgir v. narsing rao ramachandra i.l.r. (1891) c 517 and we cannot follow it. the order of the subordinate judge must be set aside and that of the district munsif restored. the appellant is entitled to his costs in this and in the lower appellate court.
1. The ruling quoted, Badhacharan v. Man Singh I.L.R. (1890) A. 392 has never been adopted in the courts either of this or of the other Presidencies, see Ramanadhaii Chetti v. Periatambi Shervai I.L.R. (1883) M. 250; Wajihan v. Bishivanath I.L.R. (1887) B. 457 and Rada Krishen Lall v. Bada Per shad Singh I.L.R. (1891) C 462; Shankara Bisto Nadgir v. Narsing Rao Ramachandra I.L.R. (1891) C 517 and we cannot follow it. The order of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and that of the District Munsif restored. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this and in the Lower Appellate Court.