Skip to content


Govinda Menon Vs. Karunakara Menon and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad43
AppellantGovinda Menon
RespondentKarunakara Menon and ors.
Cases ReferredRaghavachariar v. Rangachariar Second Appeal No.
Excerpt:
suits valuation act - act vii of 1887, section 11--under-valuation of suit-- disposal of suit not prejudicially affected--admissibility of objection on second appeal. - - 2. we are of opinion that even though the suit were under-valued as suggested on behalf of the first defendant (of which however we are by no means satisfied) the objection is not one which we should entertain having regard to section 11 of the suits valuation act (act vii of 1867) as it is not;.....of the district munsif's court to entertain the suit as it is urged that the proper valuation of the suit exceeds the jurisdiction of that court.2. we are of opinion that even though the suit were under-valued as suggested on behalf of the first defendant (of which however we are by no means satisfied) the objection is not one which we should entertain having regard to section 11 of the suits valuation act (act vii of 1867) as it is not; shown that the disposal of the suit has been thereby prejudicially affected.3. it was urged that this objection could only be taken in the court of first appeal, and not on second appeal. we think, however, that it is an objection that can be raised in second appeal [raghavachariar v. rangachariar second appeal no. 848 of 1892 (unreported)]. as no.....
Judgment:

1. The only question raised before us is as to the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court to entertain the suit as it is urged that the proper valuation of the suit exceeds the jurisdiction of that Court.

2. We are of opinion that even though the suit were under-valued as suggested on behalf of the first defendant (of which however we are by no means satisfied) the objection is not one which we should entertain having regard to Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act (Act VII of 1867) as it is not; shown that the disposal of the suit has been thereby prejudicially affected.

3. It was urged that this objection could only be taken in the Court of first appeal, and not on second appeal. We think, however, that it is an objection that can be raised in second appeal [Raghavachariar v. Rangachariar Second Appeal No. 848 of 1892 (unreported)]. As no other grounds of appeal are urged before us, we dismiss this second appeal with costs.


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