Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
B. Balaji Singh vs B. Raj Kumari And Anr. on 15 October, 1971 cites

Valliammal Ammal vs Periaswami Udayar on 3 March, 1959

Clause (2) of that section provides that an appeal shall lie to the Principal Judge from any decree or order appealable under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code passed in any suit or proceeding where the amount or value of the subject-matter does not exceed five thousand rupees--(1) by a Judge other than the Principal Judge before the 1st July, 1955 or (2) by an Assistant Judge on or after 1st July, 1955. Clause (3) of Section 13 provides that a second appeal shall lie to the High Court from any decree passed by the Principal Judge or an Additional Judge in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction on all or any of the grounds mentioned in Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the petition before. the Assistant Judge, the value of the subject-matter has been given by the appellant as Rs. 10. It would, therefore, follow that the appeal against his order would lie under Section 15 of the Madras City Civil Court Act., only to the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, against whose judgment a second appeal to the High Court will lie. This is also the view which has been upheld by Ramachandra Iyer, J. as he then was, in Valliammal v. Periasami Udayar, . It is true, that though in that case an appeal against the order passed under the Hindu Marriage Act by the sub-court was held to lie to the District Court, the question of jurisdiction in the case of an appeal against the order of the Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court did not directly arise for consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to distinguish that case from the instant case on the ground that there was a Government notification empowering the Sub-Courts in the moffusil to entertain petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act whereas no such notification exists in respect of the Assistant Judges of the Madras City Civil Court. I do not think that this alters the legal position.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1