Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
K.M. Venkatachala Chetty vs V.D. Natesa Chetty on 17 November, 1936 cites

Saiyid Muzhar Hossein vs Mussamat Bodha Bibi And Anr. on 8 December, 1894

and Saiyed Muzhar Hossein v. Bodha Bibi (1895) 5 M.L.J. 20 : L.R. 22 I.A. 1 : I.L.R. 17 All. 112 (P.C.). But both these cases were decided with reference to the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 in which the wording of the relevant sections differed materially from that of the Code of 1908. Special leave to appeal was given in each of these cases on the ground that the suit had been fully tried in the lower Court, and the 'cardinal point' decided, leaving, in the one case, only a reference for accounts and, in the other, only subordinate points for decision, should have been dealt with by the appellate Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

T.V. Tuljaram Row vs M.K.R.V. Alagappa Chettiar on 29 September, 1910

2. The fee of Rs. 100 was paid by the appellant under Rule 36 and he contends that it is sufficient. The argument of his earned Counsel is, as the matter has been referred to the official referee for accounts, the suit cannot be said to be finally disposed of, and there was no final judgment within the meaning of Rule 35, and he was not bound to pay a higher court-fee than what he has done. An appeal lies from the judgment of a single judge in a suit instituted on the original side under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The word 'final' is not to be found in Clause 15 but it occurs in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent where an appeal is provided to His Majesty in Council against the final judgment, decree or order of the High Court of Judicature at. Madras. It may be noticed that Clause 40 of the Letters Patent provides a similar appeal against any preliminary or interlocutory judgment, decree or order of the High Court under certain conditions specified in the said clause. So far as our High Court is concerned, there has been a judicial interpretation of what a ' judgment' is within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in the Full Bench decision in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar (1910) 21 M.L.J. 1 : I.L.R. 35 Mad. 1 (F.B.) and ever since the date of the said decision, so far as I know, it has been treated as an authority on the said matter and subsequent decisions have in this Court uniformly adopted the interpretation given therein. According to the said decision the word 'judgment' in Clause 15 would cover not only a final judgment but an interlocutory or preliminary judgment. But neither Arnold White, C.J., nor Krishnaswamy Aiyar, J., defined what a final judgment is. Krishnaswamy Aiyar, J., adopts the definition given by Black in his Book on Judgments, for explaining what an interlocutory judgment is. He seems to treat the terms ' interlocutory' and 'preliminary' as synonymous. It is unnecessary for me to consider whether this view is sound. I think it is enough to determine for the purpose of this reference what a final judgment means. If it is determined what 'a final judgment' means, every judgment which is not final will be either interlocutory or preliminary.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 151 - Full Document
1