Skip to content


Vidhyapurana Thirthaswami Vs. Vidyanidhi Thirthaswami Vidyanidhi Thirthaswami, a Lunatic Represented by His Guardian Ad Litem Keshavacharya and Five ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad654
AppellantVidhyapurana Thirthaswami
RespondentVidyanidhi Thirthaswami Vidyanidhi Thirthaswami, a Lunatic Represented by His Guardian Ad Litem Kesh
Excerpt:
letters patent, article 15 - 'judgment'--order dismissing petition praying court to receive security for costs--appeal. - 1. a preliminary objection has been raised as to whether an appeal lies under the letters patent against the order of benson, ,t. as the effect of that order, refusing to receive the sum ordered to be paid as security, would be to finally deprive the appellant of his power of prosecuting his appeal, we consider that the order of mr. justice benson amounts to a judgment within the meaning of article 15 of the letters patent and that there is consequently an appeal against it. as the order of mr. justice boddam ordering security to be furnished was indefinite in that it did not fix an exact date on or before which security was to be given, we consider that the sum tendered to this court as security should have been received. we accordingly direct that the same be received provided it be.....
Judgment:

1. A preliminary objection has been raised as to whether an appeal lies under the Letters Patent against the order of Benson, ,T. As the effect of that order, refusing to receive the sum ordered to be paid as security, would be to finally deprive the appellant of his power of prosecuting his appeal, we consider that the order of Mr. Justice Benson amounts to a judgment within the meaning of Article 15 of the Letters Patent and that there is consequently an appeal against it. As the order of Mr. Justice Boddam ordering security to be furnished was indefinite in that it did not fix an exact date on or before which security was to be given, we consider that the sum tendered to this Court as security should have been received. We accordingly direct that the same be received provided it be tendered in cash to the Registrar of this Court on or before the 20th instant and the time for furnishing security is extended to that day. The Advocate-General on behalf of the appellant states that he does not wish to prosecute Appeal No. 227 of 1900 against the legal representatives of the first respondent (deceased).

2. The parties will bear their own costs of this appeal.


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