Skip to content


K.V. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. Devar and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Mad248; (1953)2MLJ525
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC)
AppellantK.V. Govindarajulu Mudaliar
RespondentDevar and Co.
Appellant AdvocateV.S. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.K. Balakrishnan, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredKrishna Reddi v. Thanikachala
Excerpt:
letters patent clause 15--suit order transferring from one court to another--not 'judgment'--not appealable;an order of the high court transferring a suit from one court to another is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent.;asrumati debt v. kumar rupendra debi rajkot(1) followed krishna reddy v. thanikachala(2) overruled - - 1. this is an appeal against the order of somasundaram j. transferring a suit on the file of the court of the district munsif of chittoor to the file of the district munsif, kozhikode. the appeal purports to be under clause 15 of the letters patent. it has been decided by the supreme court recently that an order transferring a suit from one court to another is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15: see -- 'asrumati debi v. kumar rupendra deb', (a).2. the decision in -- 'krishna reddi v. thanikachala', air 1924 mad 90 (b) on which reliance was placed by counsel for the appellant must be deemed to have been overruled by this decision of the supreme court. the appeal is therefore incompetent and is dismissed. no costs.
Judgment:
1. This is an appeal against the order of Somasundaram J. transferring a suit on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Chittoor to the file of the District Munsif, Kozhikode. The appeal purports to be under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It has been decided by the Supreme Court recently that an order transferring a suit from one Court to another is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15: See -- 'Asrumati Debi v. Kumar Rupendra Deb', (A).

2. The decision in -- 'Krishna Reddi v. Thanikachala', AIR 1924 Mad 90 (B) on which reliance was placed by counsel for the appellant must be deemed to have been overruled by this decision of the Supreme Court. The appeal is therefore incompetent and is dismissed. No costs.


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