Skip to content


Aiyya Pillay Vs. Vrithachellam Pillay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.273
AppellantAiyya Pillay
RespondentVrithachellam Pillay
Cases Referred and Venkatachelapathy v. Kanahasabapathi Pillay
Excerpt:
.....borrower whose mortgage has invoked section 69 of the transfer of property act, is to file a civil suit and in such suit the court has power to grant injunction and to impose condition for the grant thereof--section 17; [a.p. shah c.j., f.m. ibrahim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] proceedings under section 17 power of the tribunal to pass any interim order held, once the possession of the secured asset is taken, there would be no occasion for the tribunal to order redelivery of possession till final determination of the issue. in other words, it is only when the tribunal comes to the conclusion that any of the measures, referred to in section 13 (4) taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder, then only the.....order1. no one appears on either side. we are of opinion that the suit is cognizable by the small cause court. the only reason suggested by the subordinate judge for his contrary view is the fact that the plaintiff is a trustee; and that is clearly not a sufficient reason. vide sundaralingam chetti v. mariyappa chetty 26 m.k 200 and venkatachelapathy v. kanahasabapathi pillay 20 m.l.j. 146 : 5 ind. cas. 912 : 8 m.l.t. 67. these authorities support the view that the present case is not a suit relating to a trust within the meaning of article 18 of the second schedule of the provincial small cause courts act and is cognizable by the subordinate judge.2. we set aside the order of the subordinate judge and direct him to receive the plaint and dispose of the suit according to law.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. No one appears on either side. We are of opinion that the suit is cognizable by the Small Cause Court. The only reason suggested by the Subordinate Judge for his contrary view is the fact that the plaintiff is a trustee; and that is clearly not a sufficient reason. Vide Sundaralingam Chetti v. Mariyappa Chetty 26 M.K 200 and Venkatachelapathy v. Kanahasabapathi Pillay 20 M.L.J. 146 : 5 Ind. Cas. 912 : 8 M.L.T. 67. These authorities support the view that the present case is not a suit relating to a trust within the meaning of Article 18 of the second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and is cognizable by the Subordinate Judge.

2. We set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to receive the plaint and dispose of the suit according to law.


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