LAWS(MAD)-2002-4-91

N NARAYANI SOPANA PROPRIETRIX PARAMESWAR CASHEW COMPANY KALIAKKAVILAI Vs. KANYAKUMARI MARKET COMMITTEE NAGERCOIL

Decided On April 12, 2002
N. NARAYANI SOPANA, PROPRIETRIX, PARAMESWAR CASHEW COMPANY, KALIAKKAVILAI Appellant
V/S
KANYAKUMARI MARKET COMMITTEE, NAGERCOIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGASTHEESWARAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs are the appellants in these second appeals. The suits in O.S.Nos.690 and 714 of 1986 were filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the bye-law No.2 (v) (b) of the Kanyakumari Market Committee is invalid and void, to declare that plaintiffs" right to transport the cashew kernals from places outside Kanyakumari District into Kanyakumari District and to transport the cashew kernels from Kanyakumari District to places outside Kanyakumari District and to transport the Cashew kernels between the factories of the plaintiff in Kanyakumari District without having any liability to pay any market fee or other fee to the defendant and without having any liability to get any permit for the transport of the cashew kernels and for an injunction to restrain the defendant and the officials under them from stopping the vehicles and collecting any market fee or other fee on the transport of cashew kernels effected by the plaintiffs from places outside Kanyakumari District into Kanyakumari District and on the transport of Cashew kernel effected from Kanyakumari District to places outside Kanyakumari District and on the transport of cashew kernels effected between the factories and godowns of the plaintiffs in Kanyakumari District and insist upon the production of any permit for the transports of the cashew kernels. The respondent contested the suits and ultimately the suits were decreed as prayed for by the plaintiffs.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgments and decrees, the respondent herein preferred appeals in A.S. Nos.68 and 69 of 1989 before the Subordinate Judge at Nagercoil, which were allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court were set aside. As against the said judgments and decrees, the present second appeals have been preferred by the plaintiffs.

(3.) AT the time of admission of these second appeals, the following substantial questions of law are framed as arisen for consideration: