Skip to content


Zamindar of Khallikote Vs. Sivaram Bevarta Patnaik and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad231; 145Ind.Cas.380
AppellantZamindar of Khallikote
RespondentSivaram Bevarta Patnaik and ors.
Cases ReferredLtd. v. Muthappudayan
Excerpt:
- .....krishna v. balakrishna ganesh (18(sic)7) 11 bom. 488. the petitioner relies upon the midnapore zamindary co., ltd. v. muthappudayan air 1921 mad 195, but there it was held that this court would interfere where an applicant had been denied locus standi. in this case there was no denial of locus standi and consequent refusal to exercise jurisdiction. it must be found that no petition lies under section 115, civil p.c.
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. The learned District Judge has held that the question whether rent is payable in cash or kind is res judicata since the Collector acting under Section 75, Madras Estates Land Act, decided in a previous proceeding that the rent was payable in cash. Probably in the light of Talagapu Tavudu v. Zamindar of Tarla (19(SIC)6 32 IC 706, this is not res judicata; but the question still remains whether this Court can interfere under Section 115, Civil P.C. It is one of those hard cases which raise the question whether a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrongly, which undoubtedly it has, and that it can decide wrongly over a point of res judicata is held in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh (1885)11Cal 6 and Amritrav Krishna v. Balakrishna Ganesh (18(SIC)7) 11 Bom. 488. The petitioner relies upon The Midnapore Zamindary Co., Ltd. v. Muthappudayan AIR 1921 Mad 195, but there it was held that this Court would interfere where an applicant had been denied locus standi. In this case there was no denial of locus standi and consequent refusal to exercise jurisdiction. It must be found that no petition lies under Section 115, Civil P.C.


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