Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 119 (2.15 seconds)
Documents citing Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat And ... vs Nori Vekatrama Deekshithulu And Ors on 26 April, 1991

Srinivasan And Six Others vs Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, ... on 30 April, 1998

12. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit filed by the Wakf Board was not maintainable in view of Section 14 of the Inams Act. We having found that the property was a service inam granted to individuals burdened with service, which answered the de-scription of all the ingredients of wakf, the Tahsildar under Section 3 of the Inams Act, was ;not required to adjudicate as to whether it is a wakf property or not. His decision holding that the property is not a wakf property was not within his domain, and the decision could not be said to have been passed under the Inams Act. Decision or order contem plated presupposes an order passed within jurisdiction. Since the order passed by the Tahsildar has been found to be without jurisdiction, Section 14 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court would not be attracted in the subsequent suit. In the present case, since it was not within the domain of the Tahsildar to embark upon an enquiry in respect of wakf property, Section 14 of the Inams Act cannot affect the maintainability of the suit filed by the Wakf Board. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 228 in support of his argument that by virtue of Section 14 of the Inams Act, the decision of the Tahsildar cannot be challenged in a subsequent suit. No doubt, in this case, it was held that the Inams Act gives finality to the orders and decisions given by the authorities, but it is not the case here. We have already held that the Tahsildar under Section 3 of the Inams Act was not competent to enquire into or give decision in respect of the character of the wake property, therefore the said decision is of no assistance to the argument of the learned counsel.
Madras High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 117 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document

N. Krishna Chettiar Alias Krishnaswami ... vs C. Subbiah Ambalam And Anr. on 3 November, 1995

There is no merit in the contention of learned Counsel that in view of the subsequent ruling in Vetticherugheu Village Panchayat v. Nori Vekatachala Deekshithulu , my judgment requires reconsideration. The above case arose under the Andhra Pradesh Grama Panchayat Act (2 of 1964) and Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (37 of 1958). No doubt, the Bench in the above case observed that the historical perspective and the real purpose and proper scope and operation of the Estates Abolition Act was not focused to the notice of the Court in the earlier case. After referring to the earlier rulings of the Supreme Court, it was observed in paragraph 26 as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramalingam And 2 Others vs The Idol Of Sri Thayumanasamy At Sri ... on 30 April, 1998

20. Since my dictating the above the Full Bench constituted for the purpose of resolving the conflict rendered its judgment today (30.4.1998). I have had the benefit of going through the Full Bench decision. The Full Bench has referred to an unreported judgment of a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 5141 of 1993 Sri-la-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avargal v. Smt.T. Parvathi & Ors. wherein the Supreme Court not only approved its earlier decision reported in R. Manicka Naicker v. E. Elumalai Naicker and others, and set the seal of approval to the principles laid down therein, but also categorically held in unmistakable terms that its decision in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu and others, 1991 Supp.(2) SCC 228 had no application to the provisions or in respect of claims arising under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The Full Bench has held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of the parties is not barred by virtue of the provisions of the said Act. I respectfully follow the Full Bench and I hold that the substantial question of law raised in the present second appeal will have to be answered in favour of the appellant and the nature of the dispute being one relating to adverse possession, the case has to be decided by the courts below.
Madras High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs K.S.D.Rajendran on 28 January, 2008

Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision in Vatticharularu Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekchithulu, 1991 (2) S.C.C (Supp.) 228. It is sufficient to observe that this decision relates to the provisions under a different Act of Andhra Pradesh. Moreover, in R.Manicka Naicker, this decision relating to the provisions in the Andhra Pradesh Act was considered and distinguished. In view of the direct decision of this Court in R.Manicka Naicker, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal and the Contempt Petition are dismissed."
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Kesha Appliances P. Ltd. And Ors. vs Royal Holdings Services Ltd. And Ors. on 30 November, 2005

29. The aforesaid view of the 7 judge bench and of the constitution bench has been subsequently and consistently followed by the supreme in the case of Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori V. Deekshithulu reported in 1991 Supp (2) S.C.C. 228 "Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that whenever a question arises before the civil court whether its jurisdiction is excluded expressly or by necessary inplicaiton, the court naturaally feels inclined to consider whether remedy afforded by an alternative provision prescibed by special statute is sufficient or adequate. In cases where exclusion of the civil court's jurisdiction is expressly provided for, the consideration as to the scheme of the statute in question and the adequacy or sufficiency of the remedy provided for by it may be relevant, but cannot decisive. Where exclusiion is pleaded as a matter of necessary implication such consideration would be very important and in conceivable circumstances might become even decisive."
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

J.M.K.Jiyavudheen(Died) vs Smt. Ramjan Beevi on 16 March, 2020

This is a direct decision of this Court on the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned for the appellant placed reliance on the decision in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu and Ors., 1991 (Supp.) 2 SCC 228. It is sufficient to observe that this decision relates to the provisions under a different Act of Andhra Pradesh. Moreover, in R.Manicknaicker, this decision relating to the provisions in the Andhra Pradesh Act was considered and distinguished. In view of the direct decision of this Court in R. Manicknaicker, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal and the contempt petition are dismissed.”
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Sellakumarasamy vs P.Swaminathan on 17 March, 2009

This is a direct decision of this Court on the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned for the appellant placed reliance on the decision in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat Vs. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu and Ors., 1991 (Supp.) 2 SCC 228. It is sufficient to observe that this decision relates to the provisions under a different Act of Andhra Pradesh. Moreover, in R.Manickanaicker, this decision relating to the provisions in the Andhra Pradesh Act was considered and distinguished. In view of the direct decision of this Court in R.Manickanaicker, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal and the contempt petition are dismissed."
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next