Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Sengoda Nadar vs Doraiswami Gounder And Ors. on 14 August, 1970

Satheedevi vs Prasanna & Anr on 7 May, 2010

In Sengoda Nadar v. Doraiswami Gounder and others (supra) and S. Krishna Nair and another v. N. Rugmoni Amma (supra), the other learned Single Judges did not correctly appreciate the ratio of the judgment of the coordinate Bench in Arunachalathammal v. Sudalaimuthu Pillai (supra) and distinguished the same without assigning cogent reasons. We may also observe that if the learned Single Judges felt that the view expressed by the co-ordinate Bench was not correct, they ought to have referred the matter to the larger Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 105 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Smt Suguna W/O Madhusudhan Ural vs V Sunil Kumar Holla S/O U Lakshman Holla on 26 April, 2013

In Sengoda Nadar v. Doraiswami Gounder and others, (AIR 1971 Mad 380) (supra) and S.Krishna Nair and another v. N. Rugmoni Amma, (AIR 1976 Mad 208) (supra), the other learned Single Judges did not correctly appreciate the ratio of the judgment of the coordinate Bench in Arunachalathammal v. Sudalaimuthu Pillai (supra) and distinguished the same without assigning cogent reasons.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 37 - A N Gowda - Full Document

S. Krishna Nair And Anr. vs Rugmoni Ammal Alias Valiamma Pillai on 26 August, 1975

The next corollary is as to what is the value to be adopted by the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners would say that it is enough if the value as disclosed in the earlier proceedings is adopted in the present action. But, as I said, the distinguishing feature in this case, is, the plaintiffs in the present suit are not the same parties who participated in the earlier proceedings. This apart, I am inclined to follow the judgment of Sadasivam, J., in Sengoda Nadar v. Doraiswami Gounder , which in turn, referred to a full bench decision in Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaraman I.L.R. (1939) Mad. 764 : (1939) 1 M.L.J. 702 : A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 462, and held that the suit has to to be valued by giving the market value of the properties covered by the judgment of this Court in the earlier suit as on the date of the plaint. The lower Court, therefor, was right in having come to the conclusion that, in the circumstances of the case, the property has to be valued under Section 40(1) and not under Section 25(b) and that it has to be evaluated as on the date of the plaint. There is no reason to interfere with the said conclusion. The civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The petitioners are granted two months' time to pay the Court-fee.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1