Skip to content


Kristnam Sooraya and anr. Vs. Pathma Bee and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR29Mad151
AppellantKristnam Sooraya and anr.
RespondentPathma Bee and anr.
Cases ReferredAmbu v. Ketlilamma I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code act xiv of 1882, section 283 - suit brought under section 283 not liable to dismissal because no further relief asked--specific relief act i of 1877, section 42. - 1. on the facts stated by the district judge we are of opinion that the suit is sustainable. we are unable to accept the view taken by the learned judges in the case kunhiamma v. kunhunni i.l.r. 16 mad. 140.2. in our opinion the proviso to section 42 of the specific relief act does not operate so as to take away from a party against whom an order has been made under sections 280, 281 or 282 of the code of civil procedure, the special right conferred by section 28-3 to sue for a declaration of his title in so far as it is affected by the order which he seeks to impeach.3. we think the law on this question was correctly laid down by muttusami iyer, j., in his judgment in ambu v. ketlilamma i.l.r. 14 mad. 23.
Judgment:

1. On the facts stated by the District Judge we are of opinion that the suit is sustainable. We are unable to accept the view taken by the learned Judges in the case Kunhiamma v. Kunhunni I.L.R. 16 Mad. 140.

2. In our opinion the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act does not operate so as to take away from a party against whom an order has been made under Sections 280, 281 or 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the special right conferred by Section 28-3 to sue for a declaration of his title in so far as it is affected by the order which he seeks to impeach.

3. We think the law on this question was correctly laid down by Muttusami Iyer, J., in his judgment in Ambu v. Ketlilamma I.L.R. 14 Mad. 23.


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