Skip to content


Kandukuri Kotiah Vs. Devineni Reddamma and ors. and - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in33Ind.Cas.658
AppellantKandukuri Kotiah
RespondentDevineni Reddamma and ors. and ;chelasani Bhadrayya and ors.
Cases ReferredKesiram Narasimhulu v. Narasimhulu
Excerpt:
jurisdiction, how determined - suit by carpenter service inam-holder to recover possession with mesne profits, nature of--suit, whether cognizable by civil court madras hereditary village offices act (iii of 1895), sections 3 and 13). - .....seetharam naidu v. doddi rami naidu 5 ind cas. 137, if a suit is brought to eject a trespasser, civil courts have jurisdiction to try it. i entirely agree, if i may say so with respect, with the observations of mr. justice subramania aiyar quoted in that judgment, to the effect that the act is not intended to take away the jurisdiction of civil courts where trespass is alleged against the defendant. mr. janakiramayya, the learned pleader for the respondents, relies upon the decision in kesiram narasimhulu v. narasimhulu, patnaidu 30 m.s 126 : 1 m.l.t. 381mr. justice subramania aiyar with the approval of the chief justice distinctly points out in that case it was not necessary for succeeding in that litigation that the plaintiff should prove that he held the office or that the property.....
Judgment:

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. The suit (in Civil Revision Petition No. 924 of 1913) was brought on the allegation that the defendants are in unlawful possession of the property which the plaintiff is entitled to as carpenter. He sues to recover possession with mesne profits from the trespassers. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that only the Revenue Courts have jurisdiction to entertain it.

2. In disposing of the question of jurisdiction the Court is confined to the allegations contained in the plaint, and reading the plaint, I find this to be distinctly a suit by the plaintiff against persons whom he calls trespassers and from whom he seeks to recover possession and also mesne profits, I do not think that this is covered by Section 13 of Act III of 1895. This is not a suit for emolument or for the recovery of a village office specified in Section 3. As pointed out by the learned Judges in Mavoulu Seetharam Naidu v. Doddi Rami Naidu 5 Ind Cas. 137, if a suit is brought to eject a trespasser, Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try it. I entirely agree, if I may say so with respect, with the observations of Mr. Justice Subramania Aiyar quoted in that judgment, to the effect that the Act is not intended to take away the jurisdiction of Civil Courts where trespass is alleged against the defendant. Mr. Janakiramayya, the learned Pleader for the respondents, relies upon the decision in Kesiram Narasimhulu v. Narasimhulu, Patnaidu 30 M.S 126 : 1 M.L.T. 381Mr. Justice Subramania Aiyar with the approval of the Chief Justice distinctly points out in that case it was not necessary for succeeding in that litigation that the plaintiff should prove that he held the office or that the property was attached to the office. As 1 said before, we are bound by the allegations in the plaint in disposing of the question of jurisdiction. I am, therefore, of opinion that the Courts below are wrong in refusing to enquire into the case on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The decrees of the lower Courts are reversed and the case will be sent back to the first Court for disposal on the merits. Costs to abide the result. Judgment in the other case (Civil Revision Petition No. 925 of 1913) follows.


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