Skip to content


Jonnakuti Annamma Vs. Kandavalli Kanakamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945Mad88a
AppellantJonnakuti Annamma
RespondentKandavalli Kanakamma
Excerpt:
- - i find that the panchayat court has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law and has acted illegally and with material irregularity and the decree is clearly unjust;.....his judgment the evidence relating to the question of limitation and held that on the evidence the suit was barred by limitation. he then went on to say:i find that the panchayat court has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law and has acted illegally and with material irregularity and the decree is clearly unjust; that is to say, he alloyed the petition on all the grounds set out in the second and third classifications found in section 73. the panchayat court certainly did not act unjustly, illegally, or with material irregularity, or without jurisdiction, in considering the evidence on the question of limitation and coming to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by time. although verbally it is true, as the learned district munsif has said, that there is no definite finding in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. A suit was brought in the Panchayat Court of Ellore for Rs. 50 agreed to be paid by the defendant in lieu of a nagaram. A question of limitation was raised which was considered by the Panchayat Court, which came to the conclusion on the evidence adduced that the suit was not barred by limitation. On a petition Under Section 73, Madras Village Courts Act, the learned District Munsif discussed at some length in para. 5 of his judgment the evidence relating to the question of limitation and held that on the evidence the suit was barred by limitation. He then went on to say:

I find that the Panchayat Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law and has acted illegally and with material irregularity and the decree is clearly unjust;

that is to say, he alloyed the petition on all the grounds set out in the second and third classifications found in Section 73. The Panchayat Court certainly did not act unjustly, illegally, or with material irregularity, or without jurisdiction, in considering the evidence on the question of limitation and coming to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by time. Although verbally it is true, as the learned District Munsif has said, that there is no definite finding in the judgment of the Panchayat Court that the suit was in time, it is quite clear that the Panchayat Court considered this matter and came to the conclusion that the suit was within time. The District Munsif can interfere Under Section 73 only on one of the grounds mentioned therein. He is not at liberty to reconsider the evidence as if he wore a Court of appeal and to interfere in revision because he comes to a conclusion on a question of fact different from that of the Panchayat Court. The petition is allowed, the order of the lower Court set aside, and the decree of the Panchayat Court restored. The petitioner is entitled to her costs in this Court and in the lower Court.


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