Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Muvvula Seetharam Naidu vs Doddi Ramu Naidu on 22 October, 1909
They observe at page 8: " In suits where the plaintiff seeks to recover on the ground of a bare trespass and no question of title is involved as in Muvvula Seetham Naidu v. Doddi Rami N,aidu (1909) ILR 33 Mad 208: 20 MLJ 91 or, on the ground that the land is private property as in Gavara Ramanna v. Adabala Rat-tayya (1909) ILR 33 Mad 238: 20 MLJ 94 the suit is not based on any cause of action out of the plaintiff's right to recover the property as an emolument of an office and in such cases the Civil Court's jurisdiction may not be ousted. In such cases it is not necessary that the plaint should contain any mention of the fact that the land is an emolument of an office." This observation is applicable to the present case.
Section 13 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Gavara Ramanna vs Adabala Rattayya on 29 November, 1909
They observe at page 8: " In suits where the plaintiff seeks to recover on the ground of a bare trespass and no question of title is involved as in Muvvula Seetham Naidu v. Doddi Rami N,aidu (1909) ILR 33 Mad 208: 20 MLJ 91 or, on the ground that the land is private property as in Gavara Ramanna v. Adabala Rat-tayya (1909) ILR 33 Mad 238: 20 MLJ 94 the suit is not based on any cause of action out of the plaintiff's right to recover the property as an emolument of an office and in such cases the Civil Court's jurisdiction may not be ousted. In such cases it is not necessary that the plaint should contain any mention of the fact that the land is an emolument of an office." This observation is applicable to the present case.
Section 5 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Vanchinatha Aiyar vs Rajagopala Aiyar And Ors. on 18 January, 1921
6. Mr. Justice Spencer and Mr. Justice Ramesam observe in Vanchinatha Aiyar v. Rajagopala Aiyar and Ors. (1921) 41 MLJ 372 Of course a suit in which the plaintiff does not need to rely on his right to the office and its emoluments,in order to succeed, such as would be the case in the instance cited in the words of Subramania Aiyar, J. at page 210 of Muvvula Seetham Naidu v. Doddi Kami Naidu (1909) ILR 33 Mad 208: 20 MLJ 91 stands on a different fooling meaning that such a suit is not exempted from the cognisance of a Civil Court by Section 21 of the Hereditary Village Offices Act,
Kandukuri Kotiah vs Devineni Reddamma And Ors. And ... on 10 February, 1916
In Kotiah v. Reddamma (1916) IMWN 278 Seshagiri Aiyar, J. held that Act III of 1895 was not intended to take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court where trespass is alleged against the defendant. This decision was upset in L.P.A. Nos.
1