Skip to content


Bhuvanapalli Subbayya Vs. Rajah Velugoti Govinda Krishna Yachendra Varu, Rajah of Venkatagiri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1922Mad352; 66Ind.Cas.207; (1922)42MLJ118
AppellantBhuvanapalli Subbayya
RespondentRajah Velugoti Govinda Krishna Yachendra Varu, Rajah of Venkatagiri
Cases Referred and Davalatsingji (Maharanashri v. Khachar Hamir Mon I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....cause jurisdiction, and suggests that we should interfere in revision and send the suit back for retrial on the small cause side.3. in this case, unlike the cases dealt with in kollipara seethapathy v. kankipati suibayya i.l.r. (1909) mad. 323 and davalatsingji (maharanashri v. khachar hamir mon i.l.r. (1909) bom 171 there was no reversal of the first court's decree in appeal, and therefore no equity arises in the defendant's favour, to have the lower appellate court's decree set aside and get the case retried by the same original court in a less formal manner than it has already tried it. we must decline to interfere in the manner suggested seeing that the defendant has not been prejudiced by the course adopted by the district munsif.4. we dismiss this second appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. This suit to recover arrears of Kattubadi of less than Rs. 500 in amount is of a small cause nature and no second appeal lies. See Mullapudi Balakrishnayya v. Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao I.L.R. (1896) Mad. 329.

2. The appellant's vakil asks us to hold that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit on the Original Side seeing that under Section 33 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act IX of 1887) he is deemed to be a different Court from the same Court exercising small cause jurisdiction, and suggests that we should interfere in revision and send the suit back for retrial on the Small Cause side.

3. In this case, unlike the cases dealt with in Kollipara Seethapathy v. Kankipati Suibayya I.L.R. (1909) Mad. 323 and Davalatsingji (Maharanashri v. Khachar Hamir Mon I.L.R. (1909) Bom 171 there was no reversal of the first court's decree in appeal, and therefore no equity arises in the defendant's favour, to have the lower appellate court's decree set aside and get the case retried by the same original court in a less formal manner than it has already tried it. We must decline to interfere in the manner suggested seeing that the defendant has not been prejudiced by the course adopted by the District Munsif.

4. We dismiss this Second Appeal with costs.


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