Skip to content


Sri. Raja Vellanki Venkatachinnayamma Rao Bahadur Zamlndarimi Garu Vs. Sri Rajah Kotagiri Subbamma Rao Bahadur Zamindarini Garu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in95Ind.Cas.956
AppellantSri. Raja Vellanki Venkatachinnayamma Rao Bahadur Zamlndarimi Garu
RespondentSri Rajah Kotagiri Subbamma Rao Bahadur Zamindarini Garu
Cases ReferredKrishna Reddy v. Thanickachela Mudali
Excerpt:
letters patent (mad.), close 15 - order on application for temporary injunction, whether 'judgment'--appeal, whether lies. - .....v. ram. chettian chettiar 95 lnd cas. 808 : 14 l. w. 701. and srimantu raja yarlagadda durga prasada nayadu v. srimantu raja yarlagadda malli karjuna prasada nayadu (4) were cases of orders passed in execution and do not directly affect the question before us, nor diminish the authority of the case reported as tuljaram rao v. alagappa chettiar (1). it may be noted that ramesam, j., was a party both to the case reported as vairavan chettiar v. ramanathan chettiar (3) and to krishna reddy v. thanickachela mudali(2).3. as to the merits of this application, the respondent undertakes not to demolish, interfere with or reduce the dimensions of d sluice pending the decision of the second appeal. the appellant wants to be allowed to take water for the extent of 18 acres irrigated in 1327.....
Judgment:

1. It is argued that no appeal lies against the order of a Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that Krishnan, J.S order is not a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent Art. 15.

2. We think we should be guided by the observations of the learned Chief Justice Sir Arnold White in Tuljaram Rao v. Aliquippa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas. 340 : 35 M. 1 : (1910) M. W. N. 697 : 8 M.L.T. 453; 1910 21 M. L.J. 1. that an order on an application for an interim injunction is a judgment within the meaning of this article as its effect is to render the final judgment effective if obtained. This decision was recently cited with approval by our present Chief Justice in Krishna Ruddy. Thanickachela Mvdali 73 Ind. Cas. 105l : 45 M. L. J. 153 : (1923) M. W. N. 681 : A. I. R. 1924 Mad. 90 : 47 M. 136; Vairavan Cheltiar v. Ram. Chettian Chettiar 95 lnd Cas. 808 : 14 L. W. 701. and Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Nayadu v. Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Malli karjuna Prasada Nayadu (4) were cases of orders passed in execution and do not directly affect the question before us, nor diminish the authority of the case reported as Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar (1). It may be noted that Ramesam, J., was a party both to the case reported as Vairavan Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (3) and to Krishna Reddy v. Thanickachela Mudali(2).

3. As to the merits of this application, the respondent undertakes not to demolish, interfere with or reduce the dimensions of D sluice pending the decision of the second appeal. The appellant wants to be allowed to take water for the extent of 18 acres irrigated in 1327 and 1326 Faslis but the Subordinate Judge has found that he is only entitled to water for 10 acres.

4. We do not think he should be allowed to anticipate a successful issue of the second appeal and in this view the order of Krishnan, J., dismissing the civil miscellaneous petition was right. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.


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