Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (4.00 seconds)
T.R.K. Ramaswami Servai And Anr. vs The Board Of Commissioners Of The Hindu ... on 2 September, 1949
cites
Section 62 in The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
His Holiness Sinha Sri Vythilinga ... vs Sir T. Sadasiva Aiyar And Ors. on 8 August, 1928
In that case, Kumaraswami
Sastri J. sitting on the original side of this Court, passed a decree declaring that the Act
did not apply to the properties endowed for a
temple which had disappeared long before the Act came into force and granting an injunction
restraining the Board from exercising any of
the powers conferred by the Act in respect of that endowment; Vythilinga Pandaru Sannadhi v. Sadasiva Aiyar, 55 M.L.J. 605: (A.i.r. (15) 1928 Mad. 1272).
P.M.A.M. Ramaswami Chettiar (Minor) ... vs Lodd Govindoss Krishnadoss Varu on 29 April, 1925
An order purporting to be passed by a Court of first instance under an appealable provision of law will be open to appeal even though, on the facts, the order is one that should not have been passed under that provision. Authority for this view will be found in Muthiah Chettiar v. Govinddoss Krishnadoss, 44 Mad. 919 : (A.I.R. (3) 1921 Mad. 599 F.B.)
Section 73 in The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Vuppuluri Atchayya And Ors. vs Sri Kanchumarti Venkata ... on 13 August, 1912
39. There may be other cases where the want or defect of jurisdiction is not apparent from the record but is latent, consisting of
matters which are collateral or extrinsic to the merits of the case. Objections founded on the personal incompetency of the Judge or the nature of the subject-matter or the absence of, some essential preliminary to the enquiry are defects of this type. The Court may not be
properly constituted, the Judge or member of the Court being disqualified. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter may not have been given or might have been taken away. Such objections, if substantiated, would render the decision one passed without jurisdiction. The
observations of Sundara Aiyar J. in Atchayya v. Sri Seetharamachandra Rao, 39 Mad. 195 at p. 207 : (A. I. R. (2) 1915 Mad. 1223 F. B.), that, if a Court, by an error of law in deciding whether it had jurisdiction, exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, the High Court's power to interfere under Section 115 cannot be objected to on the ground that the Court had jurisdiction to decide whether it has jurisdiction or not had reference to this class of cases.
Sri Rajah Kotagiri Madhavarao Bahadur, ... vs Vutukuru Papayya Rao on 29 November, 1945
The decision in Madhavarao v. Papayya, I.L.R. (1946) Mad. 760 : (A.I.R. (33) 1946 Mad. 431) is another illustration of this class of cases. In this case ifc was held that decrees of revenue Courts both original and appellate, decreeing rent in favour of a landholder were without jurisdiction and nullities, as the land in respect of which rent had been decreed was not ryoti land, that being a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by revenue Courts. The general rule is that
"no Court of limited jurisdiciion can give itself jurisdiction by a wrong decision on a point collateral to the merits of the case upon which the limit to its jurisdiction depends.";