w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Konnoth Meenakshi Amma v/s The Province of Madras, Represented By The Collector of South Kanara, Mangalore & Others

    S.A. No. 2217 of 1944

    Decided On, 24 August 1945

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAMANNAR

    For the Appellant: P. Govinda Menon, Advocate. For the Respondents: A. Narayana Pai, Advocate, The Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Appeal (disposed of on 24-8-1945) against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, South Kanara, in A.S. No. 69 of 1944 preferred against the decree o

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the Court of the District Munsif, Kasargod in O.S. No. 198 of 1940.)The lower appellate Court has held that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the notice requisite under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is defective. The suit was to set aside a revenue sale in respect of a certain holding in Nileshwar village, South Kanara District. The notice mentioned R.S. No. 722/4-b. It is now admitted that the sale that actually took place and in respect of which the plaintiff claims relief is of R.S. No. 722/4-A. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the error in the notice arose on account of a bona fide clerical mistake and substantially the conditions required by S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been complied with. He also relied on the ruling in Venkatarama Krishnier v. Secretary of State for India in Council (23 L.W. 464). I do not agree that an error in the description of the subject matter of the suit is an insubstantial error. I may also add that there is no evidence in this case that the error was bona fide and due to an accidental slip. There can be no doubt that the particulars required by S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be set out in the notice should be accurately given. The ruling in Venkatarama Krishnier v. Secretary of State for India in Council (23 L.W. 464) which was relied on cannot help the appellant in this case, because the error here is fundamental. The second appeal is dismissed with costs—one set. Leave refused.
OR

Already A Member?

Also