Skip to content


Kannepalli Suryaprakasa Rao and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Sri Palahani Mahanti Rajaram Das Bavaji Represented by His General Power-of-attorney Holder Mr. G.S. Panchapakesan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945Mad256; (1945)1MLJ404
AppellantKannepalli Suryaprakasa Rao and ors.
RespondentSri Sri Sri Palahani Mahanti Rajaram Das Bavaji Represented by His General Power-of-attorney Holder
Excerpt:
- .....the double negative, but there is no doubt whatever as to what was conceded. an advocate has the right to say whether on the evidence he can challenge a particular fact. for doing this he need not have the previous authority of the client. in fact every day appellate courts put a question to the advocates whether this or that fact can be challanged on the record and the advocates are bound to answer. stating that this point was conceded, the lower appellate court also said, as the judges often do, that in their own opinion the concession was a fair one to make.2. seeing that this statement of the lower appellate court is not challenged by any statement of the concerned advocate, i decline to hear arguments on a point which was conceded.3. the concession is only as regards the plot marked.....
Judgment:

Somayya, J.

1. The advocate who appeared for the appellants in the lower appellate Court conceded that the plot of thirty cents which was the subject of the appeal was adjudged in the previous suits to belong to the plaintiffs. This concession is put in the double negative, but there is no doubt whatever as to what was conceded. An advocate has the right to say whether on the evidence he can challenge a particular fact. For doing this he need not have the previous authority of the client. In fact every day appellate courts put a question to the advocates whether this or that fact can be challanged on the record and the advocates are bound to answer. Stating that this point was conceded, the lower appellate Court also said, as the Judges often do, that in their own opinion the concession was a fair one to make.

2. Seeing that this statement of the lower appellate Court is not challenged by any statement of the concerned advocate, I decline to hear arguments on a point which was conceded.

3. The concession is only as regards the plot marked green in the plan dated 18th October, 1936, and attached to the decree of the first Court. The second appeal is dismissed with costs of the 1st respondent.

4. (No leave).


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