Skip to content


Sri Raja Vallanki Venkata Chinnayamma Rao Bahadur Zamindarini Garu Vs. Sri Raja Kotagiri Subbamma Rao Bahadur Zamindarini Garu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad586
AppellantSri Raja Vallanki Venkata Chinnayamma Rao Bahadur Zamindarini Garu
RespondentSri Raja Kotagiri Subbamma Rao Bahadur Zamindarini Garu
Cases ReferredVairavail Ghettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar
Excerpt:
- .....the meaning of the article 15. we think we should be guided by the observations of the learned chief justice, sir arnold white, in tuljamm rao v. alagappa chettiar [1910] 35 mad. 1, that an order, on an application for an interim injunction, is a judgment, within the meaning of this article, as its effect is to render the final judgment effective, if obtained. this decision was recently cited with approval by our present chief justice, in l.p.a. no. 3 of 1923 : vairatan chettiar v. ramanathan chettiar [1921] 14 l.w. 701 and srimanthu yarlagadda durga prasada nayudu v. srimanthu raja yalagadda mallikarjuna prasad nayudu [1901] 24 mad. 358, were oases of orders passed in execution and do not directly affect the question before us, nor diminish the authority of the case reported in.....
Judgment:

1. It is argued that no appeal lies against the order of a single judge of the High Court on the ground that Krishnan, J's order is not a judgment within the meaning of the Article 15. We think we should be guided by the observations of the learned Chief Justice, Sir Arnold White, in Tuljamm Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar [1910] 35 Mad. 1, that an order, on an application for an interim injunction, is a judgment, within the meaning of this Article, as its effect is to render the final judgment effective, if obtained. This decision was recently cited with approval by our present Chief Justice, in L.P.A. No. 3 of 1923 : Vairatan Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar [1921] 14 L.W. 701 and Srimanthu Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Nayudu v. Srimanthu Raja Yalagadda Mallikarjuna Prasad Nayudu [1901] 24 Mad. 358, were oases of orders passed in execution and do not directly affect the question before us, nor diminish the authority of the case reported in Tuljamm Row v. Alagappa Chettiar [1910] 35 Mad. 1 . It may be noted that Ramesam, J., was a party both to the case reported in Vairavail Ghettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar [1921] 14 L.W. 701 and L.P.A. No. 3 of 1923.

2. As to the merits of this application, the respondent undertakes not to demolish, interfere with, or reduce the dimensions of D sluice, pending the decision of the Second Appeal, The appellant wants to be allowed to take water to the extent of 18 acres irrigated in 1327 and 1326 faslies, but the Subordinate Judge has found that he is only entitled to water for 10 acres. We do not think he should be allowed to anticipate a successful issue of the Second Appeal and in this view, the order of Krishnan, J., dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition was right. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.


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