Savarimuthu v. Aithurusu Rowthar, Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Referred Case No. 10 of 1901, stated under section 646-B of the Civil Procedure Code, by the District Judge of Tinnevelly, in Small Cause Suit No. 143 of 1899, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tinnevelly

Advocates

Plaintiff was not represented.
The Court expressed the following.

Judges

Sir Arnold White, C.J
Benson
Bhashyam Ayyangar, JJ.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Savarimuthu v. Aithurusu Rowthar

Madras High Court
Oct 17, 1901

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Advocates

Plaintiff was not represented.
The Court expressed the following.

Judges

Sir Arnold White, C.J
Benson
Bhashyam Ayyangar, JJ.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

Savarimuthu v. Aithurusu Rowthar

OPINION

We are of opinion that a suit for the profits of immoveable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant who dispossessed the plaintiff in execution of a decrees afterwards set aside on appeal is not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Savarimuthu v. Aithurusu Rowthar

Savarimuthu v. Aithurusu Rowthar

Comments