Skip to content


Jamuna Bhai Ammal and anr. Vs. Sriman Sadagopa, Sri Sadagopa, Edintara Maha Desika Swamiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad56
AppellantJamuna Bhai Ammal and anr.
RespondentSriman Sadagopa, Sri Sadagopa, Edintara Maha Desika Swamiar
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - supreme court--letters patent, 1862, section 37--power to sell land in chingleput. - .....passed to the first defendant, and that first defendant, therefore, represents him in the suit in appeal and second appeal, and that we are mistaken, therefore, in saying that we had no concern with any right he might have had to have the judgment of the district munsif modified. he contends that we ought to have allowed first defendant's claim to one-fourth of the property representing the interest of second defendant and only dismissed the appeal as to three-fourths. mr. ramachandra rau saheb also informs us that the advocate-general has no objection to this modification of our decree.2. as the decree appears to be unsustainable in the point referred to, we resolve to admit a review of it and modify the decree as follows: we allow the review asked for of our first decree, and.....
Judgment:

Innes, J.

1. Mr. Ramachandra Rau Saheb has pointed out that the second defendant not having been a party to the equity suit, and his interest in the property having been mortgaged by him in 1865 to the first defendant, who finally, in execution of the decree in Suit No. 30 of 1871 against this second defendant and others, purchased the interest of second defendant in the property in Court sale, the interest of the second defendant passed to the first defendant, and that first defendant, therefore, represents him in the suit in appeal and second appeal, and that we are mistaken, therefore, in saying that we had no concern with any right he might have had to have the judgment of the District Munsif modified. He contends that we ought to have allowed first defendant's claim to one-fourth of the property representing the interest of second defendant and only dismissed the appeal as to three-fourths. Mr. Ramachandra Rau Saheb also informs us that the Advocate-General has no objection to this modification of our decree.

2. As the decree appears to be unsustainable in the point referred to, we resolve to admit a review of it and modify the decree as follows: we allow the review asked for of our first decree, and allow the appeal as to one-fourth of the property, being the interest of second defendant, Srinivasa, son of Venkatasami, and dismiss it in other respects. First defendant will have to pay to plaintiff proportionate costs.

3. Each party should bear his own costs of this petition.


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