Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Jagannatha Pillai And Ors. vs Kathaperumal Pillai And Ors. on 6 May, 1927

Rajah Of Venkatagiri vs Atmakuri Ramaswami on 27 February, 1946

It seems to me that to admit the right of a party to contest a sale in a Revenue Court by proceedings under Section 47 would be toanullify the rule laid down by the bench in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai (1927) 53 M.L.J. 688 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 76 to the effect that the Estates Land Act contains a simplified law of procedure in execution of rent decrees which excludes the application of the execution provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri Balusu Butchi Sarvarayudu, ... vs Polisetti Venkataratnam on 14 November, 1944

This anomaly, it is urged, cannot occur after the amendme'nt of Section 192 as it does not now specifically exclude the application of Order 43 to proceedings under the Estates Land Act. I do not consider that this makes any difference. The substantial reasoning on which the decision in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai (1902) I.L.R. 26 Mad. 267 is based is that Section 132 by making the provisions of Chapter VI of the Estates Land Act applicable to the execution by a Revenue Court of any decree for arrears of rent provides a complete code of procedure, and Section 192 which applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Act must be read subject to Section 132.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kaza Suryanarayana vs Sree Rajah Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur ... on 9 August, 1940

4. This anomaly, it is urged, cannot occur after the amendment of Section 192 as it does not now specifically exclude the application of Order 43 to proceedings under the Estates Land Act. I do not consider that this makes any difference. The substantial reasoning on which the decision in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai (1927) 53 M.L.J. 688 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 76 is based is that Section 132 by making the provisions of Chapter VI of the Estates Land Act applicable to the execution by a Revenue Court of any decree for arrears of rent, provides a complete Code of Procedure, and Section 192 which applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Act must be read subject to Section 132.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Peran Ambalagaran vs Venkatarama Naicker And Ors. on 11 December, 1942

In Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai (1927) 53 M.L.J. 688 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 76, it was held that a suit to set aside a sale in execution of a rent decree under the Madras Estates Land Act on the ground of fraud and material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale was not barred either expressly or impliedly by the Madras Estates Land Act. There also there was no occasion to deal with the question as to the right of appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sri Raja Velugoti Sarbagna Kumara ... vs Nookalapati Rami Reddi And Ors. on 25 October, 1949

4. Chapter VI of the Act provides a complete and self-contained procedure for the execution of rent decrees and neither Section 47 nor Order 21, Civil P. C. of 1908 applies to rent sales whether in execution of decrees for rent or under the summary procedure prescribed by chap. VI of the Act, Jagannath Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai, 51 Mad. 76: (A. I. R. (14) 1927 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muthukumaru Maniakarar And Anr. vs Pethia Maniakarar on 19 September, 1941

8. The contention is that the local Government has not made any rules declaring that Section 66 does not apply and therefore, under Clause (2) of that Section, it must be taken that Section 66 is made applicable to a sale in execution of a decree of a revenue Court. But the contention omits to take notice of the fact that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are only made applicable subject to the provisions of the Act and so far as the provisions of the Code are not inconsistent therewith. Where the Act itself provides the procedure for the sale of immoveable property in execution of decrees for rent that procedure has to ,be followed and not the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code so far as they relate to the sale of immoveable property and the issue of sale certificate to a purchaser at such a sale must be deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. This is the view taken by a division bench of this Court in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai (1927) 53 M.L.J. 688 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 76. (Vide the observations of Jackson, J., at page 82).
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya vs Julury Narasimha Rao, Minor By Guardian ... on 18 January, 1939

2. I am of opinion that the learned Sub-Collector went wrong in the view he took of the matter. He has taken the view that Section 192 of the Madras Estates Land Act is so worded as to make the procedure of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, by which execution sales affected by material irregularity are allowed to be set aside, available to the respondent in this revision petition. That view is against the ruling of a Bench of this Court reported in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai (1927) 53 M.L.J. 668 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 76. In that case the Court had to decide the question as to whether a suit would lie in a Civil Court to set aside a sale held in execution of a rent decree on the ground of fraud and material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. It was held that the suit would lie. In the course of the judgment the learned Judges have held that the suit is not barred either by the provisions of the Estates Land Act or by Order 21, Rule 92(3), Civil Procedure Code. Jackson, J., at page 82 says:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kallara Kambikanom Meathale Veetil ... vs Board Of Commissioners For Hindu ... on 28 January, 1935

But after hearing the matter fully, we are not satisfied that there is anything wrong in this decision or that we should, express dissent from it. One case has been mentioned to us which is not considered there and that is Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai 1927 Mad 1035. But that was a case under Section 192, Estates Land Act, where no special remedy had been provided by the Act. In this case the remedy by way of special procedure in the civil Court has been provided in the Act and the filing, of the suit is obviously only an attempt to get round such a possible adverse-decision as was afterwards given by the. Full Bench that the order of a civil Court passed on an application is nob appealable. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1