Skip to content


Narayanan Vs. Narayanan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad69
AppellantNarayanan
RespondentNarayanan and ors.
Cases ReferredVydinatha v. Subramanya I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil courts act (madras) - act iii of 1873, section 12--jurisdiction--valuation of relief--suit for partition. - 1. we think that we should follow the principle laid down in krishnasami v. kanakasabdi i.l.r. 14 mad. 183 and other cases instead of that laid down in vydinatha v. subramanya i.l.r. 8 mad. 235 on the ground that when the varanasi illom became extinct, there were, according to plaintiff's' own case, only two illoms entitled to share in the property of the extinct illom. the value of the suit is, therefore, the value of the share claimed, and the appeal lies to the district court. we return the appeal to be presented in the proper court. appellant must pay respondents' costs in this court.
Judgment:

1. We think that we should follow the principle laid down in Krishnasami v. Kanakasabdi I.L.R. 14 Mad. 183 and other cases instead of that laid down in Vydinatha v. Subramanya I.L.R. 8 Mad. 235 on the ground that when the Varanasi illom became extinct, there were, according to plaintiff's' own case, only two illoms entitled to share in the property of the extinct illom. The value of the suit is, therefore, the value of the share claimed, and the appeal lies to the District Court. We return the appeal to be presented in the proper Court. Appellant must pay respondents' costs in this Court.


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