Kulasekara Naicker and ors. Vs. Jagadambal Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment
|Judge||John Wallis, C.J.,; Willima Ayling and ;Kumaraswami Sastri, JJ.|
|Reported in||50Ind.Cas.14; (1919)36MLJ351|
|Appellant||Kulasekara Naicker and ors.|
|Respondent||Jagadambal Ammal and ors.|
|Cases Referred||Saravana Mudaliar v. Rajagapala Chetty|
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......
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.