Skip to content


Ponnusami Chetti Vs. Krishna Ayyan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad222
AppellantPonnusami Chetti
RespondentKrishna Ayyan
Excerpt:
madras regulation iv of 1816 - subordinate judge has jurisdiction of zila judge. - .....of those courts, transferred by act vii of 1843 to the subordinate judges and principal sadr amins appointed under regulations i and ii and vii and viii of 1827.3. subordinate judges appointed under the madras civil courts' act, 1873, are empowered by that act to exercise jurisdiction in all suits and proceedings of a civil nature. these terms appear sufficiently large to confer on them not only the general jurisdiction but also any special jurisdiction which had theretofore been exercised by the subordinate judges and principal sadr amins whom they superseded, and which, at the time of the passing of the civil courts' act, was still subsisting. the remedy was not taken away, and it is reasonable to infer an intention that the jurisdiction should be administered by the same class.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The point of law raised in this petition is one on which we arrive at a conclusion not without some hesitation.

2. The power conferred on the then existing Zila Courts by Madras Regulation III of 1802 was, on the abolition of those Courts, transferred by Act VII of 1843 to the Subordinate Judges and Principal Sadr Amins appointed under Regulations I and II and VII and VIII of 1827.

3. Subordinate Judges appointed under The Madras Civil Courts' Act, 1873, are empowered by that Act to exercise jurisdiction in all suits and proceedings of a civil nature. These terms appear sufficiently large to confer on them not only the general jurisdiction but also any special jurisdiction which had theretofore been exercised by the Subordinate Judges and Principal Sadr Amins whom they superseded, and which, at the time of the passing of the Civil Courts' Act, was still subsisting. The remedy was not taken away, and it is reasonable to infer an intention that the jurisdiction should be administered by the same class of Courts as had theretofore exercised it.

4. The objection that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is unsustainable, and we cannot question the propriety of his order on the merits, there being evidence to support it.

5. We must, therefore, reject this application.


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