Decided on March 29,1900



- (1.) A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies.
(2.) The suit was instituted in the District Court of Chingleput on 5 August 1897. In October 1897 a notification was published under Section 2 of Madras Act II of 1894. The effect of this notification was that as from the date of the notification Section 11 of Regulation XXV of 1802 and Regulation XXIX of 1802 ceased to apply to the office of karnam. The District Judge held quite rightly, that notwithstanding the notification he had jurisdiction to hear the suit on the ground that it bad been instituted before the notification came into force. The question before this Court is, have we jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the District Judge's decree dismissing the suit? We are of opinion that we have. The appeal is from a Court exercising original jurisdiction, and this Court, if Act II of 1894 had not been passed, would have appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 540 of the Civil Procedure Code in suits brought under the Regulations above referred to. In our judgment the appellate jurisdiction of this Court in cases where the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to entertain the suit when the suit was instituted and the parties had a right of appeal when the suit was instituted, is saved by Section 8 of the Madras General Clauses Act, 1891, unless the right of appeal has been taken away in express terms. This right of appeal has been expressly taken away by Act II of 1897 in the case of suits under Regulation VI of 1831. There is no enactment which, in express terms, takes away the right of appeal in suits brought under Regulations XXV and XXIX of 1802.
(3.) The preliminary objection is overruled.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.