Skip to content


Ramaswami Nadar Vs. Shanmugha Malavarayan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad909; 108Ind.Cas.894
AppellantRamaswami Nadar
RespondentShanmugha Malavarayan
Cases Referred and Jairam Gadowji v. Nowroji Jameshedji A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....court is not satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by a person claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account i. e., if it is not satisfied, e.g. with the claimant's good faith, or that he is in possession on his own account, the court shall allow the application. the two rulings in jafferji v. miyadin a.i.r. 1922. bom. 273 and jairam gadowji v. nowroji jameshedji a.i.r. 1922 bom. 449, are authorities for that proposition, in cases in which the court found that the obstructer was not in possession on his own account. the same result follows if the court is satisfied, as the lower court in this ease was, that the claim was not in good faith. the lower court, therefore, could have and should have allowed the application under rule 99......
Judgment:

Wallace, J.

1. Order 21, Rule 99, by its wording implies that when the Court is not satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by a person claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account i. e., if it is not satisfied, e.g. with the claimant's good faith, or that he is in possession on his own account, the Court shall allow the application. The two rulings in Jafferji v. Miyadin A.I.R. 1922. Bom. 273 and Jairam Gadowji v. Nowroji Jameshedji A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 449, are authorities for that proposition, in cases in which the Court found that the obstructer was not in possession on his own account. The same result follows if the Court is satisfied, as the lower Court in this ease was, that the claim was not in good faith. The lower Court, therefore, could have and should have allowed the application under Rule 99. It thought that Rule 99 did not apply and proceeded to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 151. This was unnecessary and in my opinion an improper exercise of jurisdiction. But its order was correct, though the section, under which it purports to pass it, is wrong; and there is, therefore, no reason to interfere in revision.

2. I dismiss this petition. There will be no order as to costs.


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