Skip to content


Sami Rao Appa and anr. Vs. Vyravan Chettiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.712
AppellantSami Rao Appa and anr.
RespondentVyravan Chettiar and ors.
Cases Referred and Narayan Parmanand v. Nagindas Bhaidas
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 102, scope of - sale in execution of small cause court decree--suit to set aside sale dismissed by ordinary court--second appeal, whether lies. - - 1. we think the preliminary objection taken that there is no second appeal is a good one. and both the lower courts, the district munsif as well as the district judge in appeal, have held that the application was barred......the application was to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud; and both the lower courts, the district munsif as well as the district judge in appeal, have held that the application was barred. the district judge, unfortunately, has not written a full judgment. but he was not bound, by law, in a case of this nature to write such a judgment. he refers to the two paragraphs in the judgment of the district munsif as carefully dealing with the question of limitation and he says that he agrees with that conclusion. mr. rama chandra aiyar contends that he has not considered the other portions of the judgment of the district munsif. there is nothing to show that he confined his attention only to paragraphs 23 and 24 of the district munsif's judgment. the evidence was placed before him, and.....
Judgment:

1. We think the preliminary objection taken that there is no second appeal is a good one. Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is wide enough in its terms to cover the case of suits of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes whether they are tried by the Courts of Small Causes or by Courts in their ordinary original jurisdiction.

2. This is a view which has been held practically by all the High Courts. We need only refer to the decisions in Aithala v. Subbanna 12 M. K 116 and Narayan Parmanand v. Nagindas Bhaidas 7 Bom. L.R. 641.

3. Mr. Rama Chandra Aiyar next asks us to set aside the order of the Appellate Court in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 115. This is not, however, a case in which we should be justified in interfering. The application was to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud; and both the lower Courts, the District Munsif as well as the District Judge in appeal, have held that the application was barred. The District Judge, unfortunately, has not written a full judgment. But he was not bound, by law, in a case of this nature to write such a judgment. He refers to the two paragraphs in the judgment of the District Munsif as carefully dealing with the question of limitation and he says that he agrees with that conclusion. Mr. Rama Chandra Aiyar contends that he has not considered the other portions of the judgment of the District Munsif. There is nothing to show that he confined his attention only to paragraphs 23 and 24 of the District Munsif's judgment. The evidence was placed before him, and there is no reason to think that the whole matter was not fully argued before him and considered by him. The result is that both the appeal and the revision petition are dismissed with costs in both.


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