Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1954 DIGILAW 109 (MAD)

Koil Kandadai Chandamarutham Vedanthachariswami and four others v. Rajah Sir Muthaiah Chetti,(Raja Sir Muthia Chettiar)

1954-03-17

RAJAGOPALAN, SATYANARAYANA RAO

body1954
Satyanarayana Rao, J.-We think that the view taken by the office, that a memorandum of cross-objections does not lie, under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, is correct. Section 51 confers a special right on the aggrieved person in certain cases to appeal to a Special Tribunal constituted by the Chief Justice. There is no provision in the Act attracting the entire procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code including the right to file dross-objections: and the right of the aggrieved person is restricted to an appeal under section 51. The rule on which reliance is placed only empowers the Special Tribunal to exercise all the powers exercisable by a civil Court in the trial of suits and appeals, but it does not confer any right upon the litigant to file cross-objections instead of an appeal: and we think, therefore, that there is no right conferred upon the aggrieved person to file a memorandum of cross-objections in this appeal. The memorandum of cross-objections is directed to be returned. K.C. ----- Memorandum of cross-objections directed to be returned.