Skip to content


Ambalathilakath MoidIn Kutti Vs. Ambalathilakath Kunhi Kutti Ali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad721
AppellantAmbalathilakath MoidIn Kutti
RespondentAmbalathilakath Kunhi Kutti Ali
Cases ReferredSurnamoyi Dasi v. Ashutosh Goswami I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 283--'party against whom an order has been made.' - - 123, this decision is good law.1. having regard to the terms of the order made in the claim proceedings and to the fact that it was not proved that the plaintiff actually received notice of the claim proceedings, we are of opinion that the plaintiff is not a party against whom an order has been made within the meaning of section 283, code of civil procedure, and that the order is not conclusive as against him. we do not think the decision of the full bench netietom perengaryproin v. tayanbarry parameshwaren nambudri 4 m.h.c.r. 472 precludes us from adopting this view, moreover it seems doubtful whether, having regard to the observations made in the judgment of the privy council in sardhari lal v. ambika pershad 15 i.a. 123, this decision is good law. the bombay and calcutta high courts have adopted a different view.....
Judgment:

1. Having regard to the terms of the order made in the claim proceedings and to the fact that it was not proved that the plaintiff actually received notice of the claim proceedings, we are of opinion that the plaintiff is not a party against whom an order has been made within the meaning of Section 283, Code of Civil Procedure, and that the order is not conclusive as against him. We do not think the decision of the Full Bench Netietom Perengaryproin v. Tayanbarry Parameshwaren Nambudri 4 M.H.C.R. 472 precludes us from adopting this view, Moreover it seems doubtful whether, having regard to the observations made in the judgment of the Privy Council in Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Pershad 15 I.A. 123, this decision is good law. The Bombay and Calcutta High Courts have adopted a different view from that taken by the Full Bench in the case referred to Shivappa v. Dod Nagaya I.L.R. 11 Bom. 114 and Kedar Nath Chatterji v. Rathal Das Chatterji I.L.R. 15 Calc. 674. See, however, Surnamoyi Dasi v. Ashutosh Goswami I.L.R. 27 Calc. 714.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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