Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Acts
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
Acts

    Tirupati Raju v. Vissam Raju And Anr.

    1. The Collector having done all that he could do under the Land Acquisition Act was not, in our opinion, precluded from bringing this suit in an ordinary Civil Court, there being no prohibition by any enactment against his doing so. The next question is whether the suit should have been brought in a Small Cause Court, assuming that there was one having jurisdiction up to Rs. 500, which appears not to have been the case. Having regard to Article 14 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which excludes suits for the recovery of compensation paid under the Land Acquisition Act from the small cause jurisdiction, we think the present, which is a substantially similar suit, did not lie in the Small Cause Court, as it involved, not incidentally but necessarily, the determination of a title to land, and would consequently fall under Article 11. In this view, a second appeal lay, and a petition for revision is not admissible. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Tirupati Raju v. Vissam Raju And Anr.
    (Dec 1, 1896)