Skip to content


Venkatanarasimha Naidu Vs. Suranna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR17Mad298
AppellantVenkatanarasimha Naidu
RespondentSuranna
Cases ReferredVelli Periya Mira v. Moidin Padsha I.L.R.
Excerpt:
rent recovery act - madras act viii of 1865, section 76--civil procedure code, sections 4, 622. - .....under madras act viii of 1865 by a collector are open to revision under section 622 of the code of civil procedure.2. the question was answered in the negative in velli periya mira v. moidin padsha i.l.r. 9 mad. 332 which was followed in appandai v. srihari joishi i.l.r. 16 mad. 4513. it has now been contended that the revision mentioned in section 76 of act viii of 1865 (madras) means revision by the court which made the order and not revision by a superior court. we are unable thus to limit the scope of the word by introducing words which are not to be found in the section.4. as to the contention that act viii of 1865 is a local act and cannot override the provisions of section 622 of the code of civil procedure by the powers conferred on this court under the letters patent, we need.....
Judgment:

1. The preliminary point in this case is whether orders passed under Madras Act VIII of 1865 by a Collector are open to revision under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The question was answered in the negative in Velli Periya Mira v. Moidin Padsha I.L.R. 9 Mad. 332 which was followed in Appandai V. Srihari Joishi I.L.R. 16 Mad. 451

3. It has now been contended that the revision mentioned in Section 76 of Act VIII of 1865 (Madras) means revision by the Court which made the order and not revision by a superior Court. We are unable thus to limit the scope of the word by introducing words which are not to be found in the section.

4. As to the contention that Act VIII of 1865 is a local Act and cannot override the provisions of Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the powers conferred on this Court under the Letters Patent, we need only refer to Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. We do not see sufficient ground for dissenting from the decision in Velli Periya Mira v. Moidin Padsha I.L.R. 9 Mad. 332

6. This petition is dismissed, with costs.


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