Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Pethu Reddiar And Ors. vs Rajamba Ammal on 15 December, 1944
In that case the High Court decreed a suit setting aside fourteen sales and a power of attorney and granted leave to appeal to the Privy Council to three vendees only as regards the sales in their favour Pethu Reddiar v. Rajambu Ammal (1946) 1 M.L.J. 245. The value of all the properties in dispute on appeal to the Board exceeded in the aggregate the sum of Rs. 0,000 though the subject-matter of the appeals separately did not exceed that amount in each case. A preliminary objection was taken before the Privy Council that the High Court had no power to grant leave, because the case of each appellant must be regarded separately and so regarded the appeals were not of the required value. This objection was overruled as on the facts of the case there was indeed only one matter in dispute and therefore plurality of appellants was not material.
Sree Raja Vasireddi Sree Chendra ... vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 29 July, 1919
7. Even if the petitioners are allowed to consolidate the suits for the purposes of pecuniary valuation, the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be satisfied on the valuation in the Courts below. But the petitioners will not be precluded from showing that the real value of the subject-matter in these appeals is different from the Court-fee value (vide Chandra Mouleswara Prasad Bahadur v. Secretary of State for India (1931) 61 M.L.J. 692 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 106. A report must therefore be called for from the District Munsiff of Bhimavaram our the market value of the Kudivaram interest in the lands forming the subject-matter of the four appeals covered by C.M. Is. Nos. 3752, 3753, 3754 and 3755. The report should be sent up before 18th July, 1949. One week for objections. After the receipt of the report, the applications will be posted before a Division Bench.
Ponnammal And Ors. vs Rajambu Ammal on 15 December, 1944
9. With great respect to the learned Judges in Ponnammal v. Rajambu Ammal (1919) 4 Pat. L.J. 198, we think, that the proper way of looking at the matter is not to search for a special provision permitting consolidation for purposes of security. Under Order 45, Rule 4, two appeals each of which might not be of the required value of Rs. 10,000 and above may, for.the purposes of pecuniary valuation, be consolidated and when the aggregate value fulfils the condition as to valuation, leave may be granted. The result would be that notionally the two appeals after such consolidation would amount to one appeal, i.e., one consolidated appeal. Actually in practice only one number is given by the Privy Council in such cases. If that is the position,. then, the proper construction, of Rule 7 of Order 45 would be that the applicant or applicants who has or have been granted leave to file a consolidated appeal should furnish security and deposit the amount required to defray the experses of translation, etc., in respect of the consolidated appeal. If after consolidation, the position is that there is only one appeal to the Privy Council or the Federal Court, then the applicant or applicants can be asked to furnish security and deposit printing and translation charges only once. It may be that having regard to the number of appeals consolidated and the number of respondents in the several appeals, the Court may direct security for a sum in excess of Rs. 4,000. Rule 108 of the Appellate Side Rules provides that:
Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
Section 110 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sri Raja Lanka Venkat Rattamma Garu vs Sri Rajah Kandregula Srinivasa ... on 5 February, 1935
The learned Judges followed the ruling of the Bombay High Court in Venkat Rao v. Srinivas Rao (1944) 46 Bom.
Sri Rajah Kakarlapudi Ramachandra Raju ... vs Cheepurapalli Appayya And Ors. on 26 July, 1915
5. A decision of a Bench of this Court in Ramachandra Raju v. Appayya (1915) a L.W. 916 was brought to our notice as leading to a different conclusion. In that case there were four petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decrees of the High Court in four appeals. In none of the appeals taken separately was the amount or value of the subject-matter Rs. 10,000 or upwards, but a common judgment was pronounced in all the suits and the aggregate value of the suits exceeded Rs. 10,000. But the learned Judges held that this fact would make no difference and that the applicants were not entitled to a certificate under section No. One important fact cannot be overlooked in dealing with this decision, namely, that there was no application to the Court for a consolidation of the appeals for purposes of pecuniary valuation under Order 45, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though no doubt it was argued for the petitioners that the judgment was common to all the suits and their aggregate value was over Rs. 10,000, the provisions of Order 45, Rule 4 do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Court. In our opinion, this decision cannot be treated as authority for the position that even when several suits are decided by a common judgment and involve substantially the same questions for determination, they cannot be consolidated for purposes of pecuniary valuation. If so treated, it would be in direct conflict with the statutory provision of Order 45, Rule 4.
1