Skip to content


Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Iswaram Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1927)53MLJ903
AppellantMeenakshi Ammal
Respondentiswaram Aiyar
Cases ReferredVeerasami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali
Excerpt:
- - venkatachala mudali (1925) 50 mlj 102. i think the rule is that this court will not do anything like going into the merits when an appeal is available to the party, but if the lower court whose order is impugned has entirely misconceived the question before it or committed such obvious irregularity, there is no reason why this court should not interfere......rule is that this court will not do anything like going into the merits when an appeal is available to the party, but if the lower court whose order is impugned has entirely misconceived the question before it or committed such obvious irregularity, there is no reason why this court should not interfere. in the very short order written by the learned district munsif in tills case he finds that the claimant's prima facie title is proved, and evidently he has not addressed his mind at all to the question of possession which is the question to be decided in this connection. in these circumstances the order is set aside and the petition referred to the district munsif for disposal according to law.2. costs of this petition will be costs in the proceedings.
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the District Munsif of Ambasumudram in C.M.P. No. 253 of 1925 allowing a claim in S. C. S. No. 505 of 1919 on the file of the Tinnevelly Sub Court. A preliminary point has been taken that this Court cannot interfere by way of revision. I have already discussed the authorities on this question in Veerasami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali (1925) 50 MLJ 102. I think the rule is that this Court will not do anything like going into the merits when an appeal is available to the party, but if the lower court whose order is impugned has entirely misconceived the question before it or committed such obvious irregularity, there is no reason why this Court should not interfere. In the very short order written by the learned District Munsif in tills case he finds that the claimant's prima facie title is proved, and evidently he has not addressed his mind at all to the question of possession which is the question to be decided in this connection. In these circumstances the order is set aside and the petition referred to the District Munsif for disposal according to law.

2. Costs of this petition will be costs in the proceedings.


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