Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
KONNOTH MEENAKSHI AMMA V/S THE PROVINCE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF SOUTH KANARA, MANGALORE & OTHERS, decided on Friday, August 24, 1945.
[ In the High Court of Madras, S.A. No. 2217 of 1944. ] 24/08/1945
Judge(s) : RAJAMANNAR
Advocate(s) : P. Govinda Menon. A. Narayana Pai, , The Government Pleader.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page







#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1945 (58) LW 534 (1)"  







        (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 of 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.