Skip to content


In Re: K. Nataraja Pillai and Co., Through One of Its Partners, K. Nataraja Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported inAIR1958Mad454; (1958)1MLJ255
AppellantIn Re: K. Nataraja Pillai and Co., Through One of Its Partners, K. Nataraja Pillai
Excerpt:
- .....for eviction had apparently been made before 7th march, 1951. the council did not have its name changed into the new style when the order for eviction was made. under the name as it stood before the change effected on the 7th march, 1951,. the council applied for execution of the order. the learned district judge has held that the council is entitled to maintain its application under its old name. i am unable to see any reason why it should not. this is not a case of transfer or devolution of interest but of a mere change of name. there: is no reason why a person, who has changed his name during the pendency of proceedings in court, should not continue the old proceedings under the old name, while adopting the new name for proceedings which would commence after the change-in his.....
Judgment:

Subrahmanyam, J.

1. The Church of Sweden Mission Council in South India obtained an order for eviction against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the date of the order of eviction is 25th June, 1951. On 7th March, 1951, the general body of the Church of Sweden Mission Council in South India, at a special meeting, passed a resolution resolving to change the name of the Council into the ' Church of Sweden Mission in India '. The application for eviction had apparently been made before 7th March, 1951. The Council did not have its name changed into the new style when the order for eviction was made. Under the name as it stood before the change effected on the 7th March, 1951,. the Council applied for execution of the order. The learned District Judge has held that the Council is entitled to maintain its application under its old name. I am unable to see any reason why it should not. This is not a case of transfer or devolution of interest but of a mere change of name. There: is no reason why a person, who has changed his name during the pendency of proceedings in Court, should not continue the old proceedings under the old name, while adopting the new name for proceedings which would commence after the change-in his name.

2. There is no substance in the Civil Revision Petition. It is dismissed.


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