Skip to content


Sundarappier and ors. Vs. Krishnaswamy Iyer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1926Mad320
AppellantSundarappier and ors.
RespondentKrishnaswamy Iyer and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....that the plaintiff delivered 9 sovereigns to the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant being perfectly aware of the fact, illegally, forcibly, and fraudulently, having no legal title or valid claim to be in possession of the same, wrested them from from 1st defendant. this amounts to an offence under ch. 17. of the i.p.c. 2. the court finds that it was not incumbent on the plaintiff to prefer a criminal complaint and he could not have figured as a complainant. why he could not is not explained. in the circumstances the order of the lower court must be held to have been passed without jurisdiction and i reverse it. 3. one vakil's fee is allowed in this and civil revision petition no. 241 of 1923. 4. this case having been posted again for being spoken to the court delivered the following.....
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. This revision petition comes very late and though the case was decided exparte, I should not ordinarily interfere ; but it appears to me that the Special Small Cause Judge has clutched jurisdiction in contravention of Article 43-A of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaint sets forth that the plaintiff delivered 9 sovereigns to the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant being perfectly aware of the fact, illegally, forcibly, and fraudulently, having no legal title or valid claim to be in possession of the same, wrested them from from 1st defendant. This amounts to an offence under Ch. 17. of the I.P.C.

2. The Court finds that it was not incumbent on the plaintiff to prefer a criminal complaint and he could not have figured as a complainant. Why he could not is not explained. In the circumstances the order of the lower Court must be held to have been passed without jurisdiction and I reverse it.

3. One vakil's fee is allowed in this and Civil Revision Petition No. 241 of 1923.

4. This case having been posted again for being spoken to the Court delivered the following

ORDER

5. The plaint may be returned and the plaintiff is directed to present the plaint, if so advised, in the proper Court.


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