AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 105 words
1.
We think that we should follow the principle laid down in Krishnasami v. Kanakasabdi ILR 14 Mad. 183 and other cases instead of that laid
down in Vydinatha v. Subramanya ILR 8 Mad. 235 on the ground that when the Varanasi illom became extinct, there were, according to
plaintiff's'' own case, only two illoms entitled to share in the property of the extinct illom. The value of the suit is, therefore, the value of the share
claimed, and the appeal lies to the District Court. We return the appeal to be presented in the proper Court. Appellant must pay respondents''
costs in this Court.