High CourtsFull Bench(1919) 02 MAD CK 0001

Kulasekara Naicker and Others vs Jagadambal Ammal and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 18 February 1919 · Citation: (1919) ILR (Mad) 352 : 50 Ind. Cas. 14 : (1919) 19 LW 322 : (1919) 36 MLJ 351

HON’BLE JUDGES
John Wallis, C.J · Willima Ayling, J · Kumaraswami Sastri, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

7 paragraphs · 178 words
1.

Accepting the interpretation put upon the word ''judgment'' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas.

340 : 35 M.P 1 : 21 M.L.J. 1 : 8 M.L.T. 453 (1910) M.W.N. 697 the most recent decision on the subject of a Full Bench of this Court, we think

that an order as to costs is not the less a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, because it relates to costs only. We do

not think that the observations of White, Chief Justice, in the later case in Numberumal Chettiar v. Krishnaji 22 Ind. Cas. 919 : 26 M.L.J. 356 : 15

M.L.T. 263 : (1914) M.W.N. 310 are opposed to this view. The one earlier decision of the Full Bench in Saravana Mudaliar v. Rajagapala

Chetty 17 M.L.J. 569 was binding on the Bench in that case and the learned Chief Justice merely distinguished it by showing that it was

inapplicable to the facts of that case. We answer the question in the affirmative.