Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)
Sri Balusu Butchi Sarvarayudu, ... vs Polisetti Venkataratnam on 14 November, 1944 cites

Jagannatha Pillai And Ors. vs Kathaperumal Pillai And Ors. on 6 May, 1927

This anomaly, it is urged, cannot occur after the amendme'nt of Section 192 as it does not now specifically exclude the application of Order 43 to proceedings under the Estates Land Act. I do not consider that this makes any difference. The substantial reasoning on which the decision in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai (1902) I.L.R. 26 Mad. 267 is based is that Section 132 by making the provisions of Chapter VI of the Estates Land Act applicable to the execution by a Revenue Court of any decree for arrears of rent provides a complete code of procedure, and Section 192 which applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Act must be read subject to Section 132.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya vs Julury Narasimha Rao, Minor By Guardian ... on 18 January, 1939

Gopalakrishnayya v. Narasimha Rao was specifically referred to in Venkataramiah Chetty v. Venkataswami Chetti, and the correctness of the finding not doubted, it being distinguished on the ground that Gopalakrishnayya v. Narasimha Rao dealt with a matter arising in execution, for which special provision had been made in the Madras Estates Land Act, whereas the right of appeal against an ejc parte decree was not expressly controlled by any provision of the Madras Estates Land Act, with the result that Section 192 as amended brought into operation the provisions of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next