Skip to content


Kothandarama Reddy and anr. Vs. Jagathambal Ammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Mad229; 71Ind.Cas.32
AppellantKothandarama Reddy and anr.
RespondentJagathambal Ammal
Cases ReferredSee Bapamma v. Collector of Godavari
Excerpt:
succession (property protection) act (xix of 1841), action under - prejudice to applicant, finding of, absence of--revision--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115. - - 1. to apply the act xix of 1841 to any particular case it is a condition precedent that the judge should find or be satisfied that the applicant was likely to be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a regular suit and that the application, was made bona fide.krishan, j.1. to apply the act xix of 1841 to any particular case it is a condition precedent that the judge should find or be satisfied that the applicant was likely to be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a regular suit and that the application, was made bona fide. see section 3 of act xix of 1841. there is no finding here by the court that these conditions are fulfilled. without that finding, the court had no jurisdiction to act under the act and its order is revisable; see bapamma v. collector of godavari 12 m. 341 : 4 ind. ded. 587.2. the revision has been confined by the petitioners to b and c schedule properties only. the order of the lower court with regard to these properties is set aside. each party will bear his or their own costs.
Judgment:

Krishan, J.

1. To apply the Act XIX of 1841 to any particular case it is a condition precedent that the Judge should find or be satisfied that the applicant was likely to be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a regular suit and that the application, was made bona fide. See Section 3 of Act XIX of 1841. There is no finding here by the Court that these conditions are fulfilled. Without that finding, the Court had no jurisdiction to act under the Act and its order is revisable; See Bapamma v. Collector of Godavari 12 M. 341 : 4 Ind. Ded. 587.

2. The revision has been confined by the petitioners to B and C schedule properties only. The order of the lower Court with regard to these properties is set aside. Each party will bear his or their own costs.


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