Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.15 seconds)
Puttamma vs Veerabhadra Mudaliar And Anr. on 16 November, 1950 cites

Donepudi Subramanyam vs Nune Narasimham And Ors. on 14 November, 1928

In Subramanyam v. Narasimham, 56 M. L. J. 489; (A. I. R. (16) 1929 Mad. 323) an objection was taken in a subsequent suit that the appeal in an earlier suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C. filed in the District Court and the second appeal thereon were all incompetent as the first appeal had been filed in the District Court though the amount of the decree under which the attachment was effected was over Rs. 5,000. Wallace J. while repelling that contention has no doubt observed without any discussion of the case law that the valuation for purposes of the appeal was the value not of the decree but of the property sought to be recovered to satisfy the debt; and the latter was within the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court. But the point has really been disposed of by him on the ground that as no objection as regards the valuation had been taken in the earlier appeal in the District Court, the same could not be allowed to be heard under the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act and specially so in a collateral proceeding.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Bibi Phul Kumari vs Ghanshyam Misra on 19 November, 1907

6. Shiv Ram v. Khurshed Ahmad, 1 L. L. J. 37 is a decision of a single Judge In the report of the judgment there is no discussion of the question, and there is no reference to any decided cases of the other High Courts, except to some earlier decision of the same Court and to Phul Kumari v. Ganshyam Misra, 35 Cal. 202: (35 I. A. 22 P. C.) and which really does not support his view with regard to jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 101 - Full Document

Anandi Kunwar vs Ram Niranjan Das And Anr. on 13 March, 1918

436) and Anandi Kunwar v. Ram Niranjan Das, 40 ALL. 605; (A. I. R. (5) 1918 ALL. 324). In Mysore there is in existence no such enactment like the Suits Valuation Act. Under Section 11, Mysore Civil Courts Act, it is provided that only when the subject-matter of a suit is a land, house or garden, the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same as the value for purposes of court-fee. The subject-matter of a suit of the kind before us is not the house but the liability for being proceeded against for the decree-amount. By way of analogy 10 Mys. L. J. 25 may be referred to. It was a suit by a landlord against a tenant for ejectment. It was held in that case that the subject-matter of such a suit for purposes of jurisdiction was the tenant's rights in the land and not the land itself and that Section 11, Civil Courts Act, could not apply to such a suit so as to make the valuation for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction the same. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to the cases cited above.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1