High CourtsFull Bench(1901) 12 MAD CK 0016

Karuppanan Servai and Others vs Srinivasan Chetti and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 December 1901 · Citation: (1902) ILR (Mad) 215

HON’BLE JUDGES
Macnaghten, J · Lindley, J · Ford North, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 242 words
1.

Their Lordships are of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed.

2.

There is no question of law. The facts have been found by two Courts; and there being two concurrent findings of fact, the decree that was

pronounced by the lower Court, and affirmed by the High Court, must be sustained.

3.

In their Lordships'' opinion the High Court ought not to have given leave to appeal in this case. The Code is clear upon the point. The words

are:-""Where the decree appealed from affirms the decision of the Court, immediately below the Court passing such decree, the appeal must

involve some substantial question of law.

4.

Now in the present case, Mr. Mayne has had considerable difficulty in stating what the question of law is, and the Court that gave the leave to

appeal seems to have had equal difficulty, because they say in their order: ""There seems to be a point of law, which however does not appear to

have been argued here""; and upon that ground they have given leave to appeal.

5.

That appears to their Lordships to be utterly contrary to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In their Lordships'' opinion no leave ought

ever to have bean given; and the appeal must be dismissed.

6.

Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed.

7.

The respondents must have their costs up to the lodgment of their case.