Skip to content


Kulasekara Naicker and ors. Vs. Jagadambal Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in50Ind.Cas.14; (1919)36MLJ351
AppellantKulasekara Naicker and ors.
RespondentJagadambal Ammal and ors.
Cases ReferredSaravana Mudaliar v. Rajagapala Chetty
Excerpt:
letters patent (mad.), clause 15 - original side fees rules, rules 87, 38--taxation, review of, by judge on original side--order as to costs, whether 'judgment'--appeal, whether lies. - .....tuljaram row v. alagappa chettiar 8 ind. cas. 340 : 35 m.p 1 : 21 m.l.j. 1 : 8 m.l.t. 453 (1910) m.w.n. 697 the most recent decision on the subject of a full bench of this court, we think that an order as to costs is not the less a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent, because it relates to costs only. we do not think that the observations of white, chief justice, in the later case in numberumal chettiar v. krishnaji 22 ind. cas. 919 : 26 m.l.j. 356 : 15 m.l.t. 263 : (1914) m.w.n. 310 are opposed to this view. the one earlier decision of the full bench in saravana mudaliar v. rajagapala chetty 17 m.l.j. 569 was binding on the bench in that case and the learned chief justice merely distinguished it by showing that it was inapplicable to the facts of that case......
Judgment:

1. Accepting the interpretation put upon the word 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas. 340 : 35 M.P 1 : 21 M.L.J. 1 : 8 M.L.T. 453 (1910) M.W.N. 697 the most recent decision on the subject of a Full Bench of this Court, we think that an order as to costs is not the less a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, because it relates to costs only. We do not think that the observations of White, Chief Justice, in the later case in Numberumal Chettiar v. Krishnaji 22 Ind. Cas. 919 : 26 M.L.J. 356 : 15 M.L.T. 263 : (1914) M.W.N. 310 are opposed to this view. The one earlier decision of the Full Bench in Saravana Mudaliar v. Rajagapala Chetty 17 M.L.J. 569 was binding on the Bench in that case and the learned Chief Justice merely distinguished it by showing that it was inapplicable to the facts of that case. We answer the question in the affirmative.


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