Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.43 seconds)Venkata Narasimha Naidu And Anr. vs Bhashyakarlu Naidu And Anr. on 18 April, 1902
In Venkata Narasimha Naidu v. Bhashyakarlu Naidu, ILR 22 Mad 538 the question was whether the learned vakil for the defendant was authorised to abandon an issue as to the impartibility of a certain estate. The learned Judges of the Madras High Court took the view that a vakil appointed to conduct a case on behalf of his client has the power to ask for an issue or to abandon an issue, to get a witness summoned or to dispense with his evidence. All these are cases of clear abandonment of certain issues but a party who in circumstances like those in this case fails to take part in framing issues cannot be said to have abandoned all issues.
Gaddam Chinna Venkata Rao And Ors. vs Koralla Satyanarayanamurthy And Anr. on 16 August, 1943
In support of his contention counsel for the respondent referred to the Full Bench judgment in G. C. Venkata Rao v. K. Satyanarayanamurthy AIR 1943 Mad 698. This case makes it abundantly clear that it is open to the Court of Appeal to maintain the decree appealed from on a ground decided against the respondent even though he did not take any cross-objection. With respect it appears to me that the judgment of Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J. puts the matter very lucidly. The learned Judge pointed out that the reason for the rule was that the respondent had no right of appeal from a decision, however, erroneous if it was in his favour and he might find himself in a difficult situation if he was obliged to remain content with supporting the decision on the only point or points on which he had succeeded without resorting to the others on which he had tailed. In my opinion, this judgment illustrates the clear words of Order 41, Rule 22 indicating that the decision may be supported on a ground which had been raised but not accepted by the trial Court. From the Court minutes it does not appear that the plaintiff had contended before the learned trial Judge that it was entitled to a decree on admission. There is no reference to it in the judgment itself.
Nagappa And Ors. vs Siddalingappa And Ors. on 18 April, 1918
Order 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not except the application of the provisions of Order 14 to any Chartered High Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extra-ordinary civil jurisdiction. Consequently the provisions of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be observed in the trial of any suit before the High Court in its original jurisdiction. Counsel for the defendant was certainly not justified in the attitude taken by him in his refusal to help in the framing of the issues but that did not absolve the Court from framing issues unless it was satisfied that the defendant did not want to make any defence. The Court minutes do not lend itself to the construction that counsel for the defendant did not raise any issues because there was no case to contest. Inasmuch as the defendant had in his written statement merely acknowledged the execution of the three letters without admitting the plaintiff's claim more than one issue arose on the pleadings and the learned trial Judge should have directed his attention to the settling of the same. It was argued by counsel for the plaintiff that the effect of not raising any issues implied the abandonment thereof and a number of decisions was cited on this point. The case of Nagappa v. Siddalingappa, AIR 1919 Mad 698 was one where the defendant did not raise any question as to the execution of a mortgage in a suit upon it and no issue was framed with reference to this point. It was observed by the Madras High Court that
"an omission to raise an issue on a question of fact implies an abandonment of that question by the party interested."
T. Devarajulu Naidu vs Kondammal And Anr. on 14 February, 1924
In Devarajulu Naidu v. Kondammal, AIR 1925 Mad 427 the factum of the execution of a Will was not challenged in the trial Court probably because of the reason that the Will was registered. Krishnan, J. refused to raise an issue for the first time in the High Court as to the factum of the Will and called for a finding thereon from the lower Court. The learned Judge said that
"if there was anything wrong with the issues framed, it was for the defendants then and there to have applied to the trial Court to amend the issues and put them right; nothing of that sort was done."
1