AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Ryotwari) Act, 1948 is correct. S. 51
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Ryotwari) Act, 1948 is correct. S. 51

    Koil Kandadai Chandamarutham Vedanthacharswami And Others v. Rajah Sir Muthiah Chetti.

    (Delivered by Satyanarayana Rao, J.)

    We think that the view taken by the office, that a Memorandum of Cross-objections does not lie, under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 is correct. S. 51 confers a special right on the aggrieved person in certain cases to appeal to a Special Tribunal constituted by the Chief Justice. There is no provision in the Act attracting the entire procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code including the right to file cross-objections; and the right of the aggrieved person is restricted to an appeal under S. 51. The rule on which reliance is placed only empowers the Special Tribunal to exercise all the powers exerciseable by a civil Court in the trial of suits and appeals, but it does not confer any right upon the litigant to file cross-objections instead of an appeal; and we think, therefore, that there is no right conferred upon the aggrieved person to file a memorandum of cross-objections in this appeal, The memorandum of cross-objections is directed to be returned.

    V.C.S

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Koil Kandadai Chandamarutham Vedanthacharswami And Others v. Rajah Sir Muthiah Chetti.
    (Mar 17, 1954)