Skip to content


Maharajah Sri Maharajah Sahib Maharban Dostan Maharajah Sri Rao Sir Venkataswetachellapathi Ranga Rao Bahadur Garu, Maharajah of Bobbili having Abdicated his Rights on 11.10.1916 in favour of his eldest son, the Hon'ble Sri Rajah Rao Sri Venkata Kumara Kristna Ranga Rao Bahadur Garu, Rajah of Bobbili Vs. Sri Raiah Sri Lakchmi Narasimha Sanyasi Raju Peda Baliar Sinhulu Bahadur Garu, Zamindar of Salur (01.10.1918 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in49Ind.Cas.750
AppellantMaharajah Sri Maharajah Sahib Maharban Dostan Maharajah Sri Rao Sir Venkataswetachellapathi Ranga Ra
RespondentSri Raiah Sri Lakchmi Narasimha Sanyasi Raju Peda Baliar Sinhulu Bahadur Garu, Zamindar of Salur
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order vii, rule 10, order xli, rule 23 - plaint, return of, for presentation to proper court--order passed ore evidence tendered--appeal--remand for appointment of second commissioner to re-value properties, validity of. - - on appeal, the district judge was of opinion that the evidence of the commissioner which was acted upon by the district munsif was unreliable owing to his want of experience of the forests on the suit estate and that 'it was desirable to get a valuation made by some officer of experience who has also knowledge of local conditions or is in a position to ascertain them......district judge was of opinion that the evidence of the commissioner which was acted upon by the district munsif was unreliable owing to his want of experience of the forests on the suit estate and that 'it was desirable to get a valuation made by some officer of experience who has also knowledge of local conditions or is in a position to ascertain them.' he, therefore, reversed the order of the district munsif and remanded the suit for disposal.2. objection is taken to the procedure adopted by the district judge on the ground that he has no power to reverse and remand the suit.3. i am of opinion that the objection is sound. ail the evidence that was tendered was taken by the district munsif and he dwelt with the question of the value of the property on its merits and on the evidence.....
Judgment:

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. The District Munsif found that the value of the suit was beyond the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. He took all the evidence that was tendered before him. On appeal, the District Judge was of opinion that the evidence of the Commissioner which was acted upon by the District Munsif was unreliable owing to his want of experience of the forests on the suit estate and that 'it was desirable to get a valuation made by some officer of experience who has also knowledge of local conditions or is in a position to ascertain them.' He, therefore, reversed the order of the District Munsif and remanded the suit for disposal.

2. Objection is taken to the procedure adopted by the District Judge on the ground that he has no power to reverse and remand the suit.

3. I am of opinion that the objection is sound. Ail the evidence that was tendered was taken by the District Munsif and he dwelt with the question of the value of the property on its merits and on the evidence before him. No error of law is suggested. The function of the Appellate Court in such cases is either to confirm or reverse the decision of the lower Court and when it is of opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient to enable it to come to a proper decision, to call for additional evidence. If the decision of the lower Court is arrived at by the exclusion of relevant evidence or by admitting irrelevant evidence or is vitiated by any other irregularity, the Appellate Court can call for a revised finding in the light of its observations. These are the powers which Appellate Courts have under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure when the case has not bean disposed of on a preliminary point by the lower Court and the Appellate Court disagrees with it.

4. The power to reverse and remand in such cases is given by Rule 23 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure and though it has been held that the rule is not exhaustive, I do not think that recourse should be had to Order XLI, Rule 23, when the proper course is to follow the procedure in Order XLI, Rules 24 to 29.

5. In the present case the remand of the whole suit for disposal by the lower Court is, in my opinion, not warranted by the provisions of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. I set aside the order of the District Court and direct the appeal to the District Court be disposed of according to law in the light of the above observations.

7. Costs will abide and follow the result.


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