Skip to content


Konnoth Meenakshi Amma Vs. the Province of Madras, Represented by the Collector of South Kanara, Mangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1945)2MLJ387
AppellantKonnoth Meenakshi Amma
RespondentThe Province of Madras, Represented by the Collector of South Kanara, Mangalore and ors.
Cases ReferredVenkataramakrishnier v. Secretary of State
Excerpt:
- .....suit is not maintainable on the ground that the notice requisite under section 80 of the code of civil procedure is defective. the suit was to set aside a revenue sale in respect of a certain holding in nileshwar village, south kanara district. the notice mentioned r.s. no. 722/4-b. it is now admitted that the sale that actually took place and in respect of which the plaintiff claims relief is of r.s. no. 722/4-a. the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the error in the notice arose on account of the bona fide clerical mistake and substantially the conditions required by section 80 of the code of civil procedure have been complied with. he also relied on the ruling in venkataramakrishnier v. secretary of state for india in council (1925) 23 l.w. 464. i do not agree that an.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, J.

1. The lower appellate Court has held that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the notice requisite under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is defective. The suit was to set aside a revenue sale in respect of a certain holding in Nileshwar village, South Kanara district. The notice mentioned R.S. No. 722/4-B. It is now admitted that the sale that actually took place and in respect of which the plaintiff claims relief is of R.S. No. 722/4-A. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the error in the notice arose on account of the bona fide clerical mistake and substantially the conditions required by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been complied with. He also relied on the ruling in Venkataramakrishnier v. Secretary of State for India in Council (1925) 23 L.W. 464. I do not agree that an error in the description of the subject-matter of the suit is an insubstantial error. I may also add that there is no evidence in this case that the error was bona fide and due to an accidental slip. There can be no doubt that the particulars required by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be set out in the notice should be accurately given. The ruling in Venkataramakrishnier v. Secretary of State for India in Council (1925) 23 L.W. 464 which was relied on cannot help the appellant in this case, because the error here is fundamental. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.--One set.

2. Leave refused.


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