Skip to content


Sri Rajah Kakarlapudi Ramachandra Raju Bahadur Garu and ors. Vs. Cheepurapalli Appayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad943; 30Ind.Cas.895
AppellantSri Rajah Kakarlapudi Ramachandra Raju Bahadur Garu and ors.
RespondentCheepurapalli Appayya and ors.
Cases ReferredRama Venkateswara v. Suppanasarri
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), sections 109, 110 - leave to appeal to privy council--judgment, one in several suits--aggregate value above rs. 10,000--each suit valued separately below rs. 10,000--appeal to privy council, if permitted. - - order 1. in none of these cases admittedly is the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the court of first instance ten thousand rupees or upwards, nor does the decree in any of these suits directly or indirectly involve some claim of like amount or value. we hold, therefore, that the applicants are not entitled to a certificate under section 110. 2. as regards section 109(c) we are not satisfied that there is a fit case for appeal to his majesty in council......court in royal insurance co. v. akhoy coomar dutt 6 c.w.n. 41. it is not clear that in deonarain singh v. guni singh 34 c.k 400 the leave granted was under section 596 corresponding to section 110, and not under section 595(c) corresponding to section 109(c). as to raja jagaveera, rama venkateswara v. suppanasarri 22 ind. cas. 290 : (1914) m.w.n. 162 the case referred to by the learned jujges does not support their conclusion. we hold, therefore, that the applicants are not entitled to a certificate under section 110.2. as regards section 109(c) we are not satisfied that there is a fit case for appeal to his majesty in council.3. the decision seems to be in accordance with the plain language of the act and with numerous decisions of this court.4. these petitions are dismissed with.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In none of these cases admittedly is the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance ten thousand rupees or upwards, nor does the decree in any of these suits directly or indirectly involve some claim of like amount or value. The fact that a common judgment was pronounced in all the suits and that the aggregate value of all the suits exceeds Rs. 10,000, in our opinion, makes no difference. This appears to us to be the plain meaning of the section and is in accordance with the ruling of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Royal Insurance Co. v. Akhoy Coomar Dutt 6 C.W.N. 41. It is not clear that in Deonarain Singh v. Guni Singh 34 C.K 400 the leave granted was under Section 596 corresponding to Section 110, and not under Section 595(c) corresponding to Section 109(c). As to Raja Jagaveera, Rama Venkateswara v. Suppanasarri 22 Ind. Cas. 290 : (1914) M.W.N. 162 the case referred to by the learned JuJges does not support their conclusion. We hold, therefore, that the applicants are not entitled to a certificate under Section 110.

2. As regards Section 109(c) we are not satisfied that there is a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council.

3. The decision seems to be in accordance with the plain language of the Act and with numerous decisions of this Court.

4. These petitions are dismissed with costs.


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