V.G.N.Devadoss vs T.G.Krishnamurthy
Author: V.Parthiban
Bench: V.Parthiban
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved ... THIRU JUSTICE V. PARTHIBAN
C.R.P.(PD) No.1244 of 2012 &
M.P.No.1 of 2013
V.G.N.Devadoss .... Petitioner
Vigneswara v. Bapayya 16 M. 436 : 3 M.L.J. 216 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1010 and Doraiswami Serumadan v. Nondisami Saluvan ... N. 767 : 24 L.W. 475 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 1190; Devadoss and Wallace, JJ. held following Jawahir Singh v. Udai Parkash
Letters Patent.
4. In Authinarayana Aiyar v. Krishnaswami Aiyar 1924 M.W.N. 755., Devadoss, J., held that the statutory period for the enforcement
were dismissed. On similar lines is the decision in Manackjee v. R.M.N. Chettiar Firm (1926) I.L.R. 5 Rule 492, which held ... judges, Devadoss and Phillips, JJ., which has not been followed in the later case in Seethai Animal v. Namyana Aiyangar (1928) M.W.N
decision on the remarks of Devadoss and Waller, JJ., in Sri Raja Vadrevu Viswasundara Rao Bahadur v. Vannam Paidi Gadu ... Oldfield, J., in Nandur Snbbayya v. Sri Venkataramayya Apparao Bahadur 1918 M.W.N. 214. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that there
subsequent decisions: Balaguruswami Naicken v. Guruswami Naicken (1924) 48 M.L.J. 506 (Devadoss and Wallace, JJ.); Ramaswami v. Kasinatha ... Kumaraswami Sastri and Curgenven, JJ.); and Subbakka v. Venkata Setti (1932) M.W.N. 1193, (Ramesam, J.). If the principle of these decisions
therefore of opinion that the decision in Joginee Mohun Chatterjee v. Bhoot Nath Ghosal (1902) I.L.R., 29 Calc, 654. is right and that ... Amba alias Padmavathi v. Shrinivasa Kamathi (1921) 26 C.W.N., 369 (P.C.). and Ram Narayan Singh v. Adhindra Nath Mukherji
decisions : Balaguruswami Naicker v. Gurusawmi Naicker ('25) 12 A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 703 (Devadoss and Wallace JJ.), Ramasami v. Kasinatha ... Kumaraswami Sastri and Curgenven JJ.) and Subbakka v. Venkata Sastri ('32) 1932 M.W.N. 1193 (Ramesam J.). If the principle of these decisions
decided in Ram Krishna Moreshwar v. Ramabai 17 B. 29 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 19 that when a party is added on application ... judgment he mentioned Ram Krishna Moreshwar v. Ramabai 17 B. 29 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 19 but said that it had no application
cannot be barred by limitation as they were brought in 1911. Mr. Devadoss, therefore, fairly admitted during the concluding portion of his argument that ... Full Bench decision in Khadersa Hajee Bappu v. Puthen Veettil Ayissa Ummah
