Supreme Court of India
SRI-LA-SRI SIVAPRAKASA PANDARA SANNADHI AVARGAL versus SMT. T. PARVATHI AMMAL AND ORS.
- Decided
- 20 February 1996
- Judges listed
- J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH, B.N. KIRPAL
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 2 S.C.R. 917 · 1996 INSC 285
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The only question for decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit which was filed by the respondents. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The First appellate Court set aside the decree taking the view that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred. In the second appeal filed by the present respondents, the High Court has restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court taking the view that the Civil ~urt's jurisdiction was not barred.
p. 917, margin F
The plea of exclusion of the Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of the parties in the present case is based on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. This Court in a recent decision in R. Manickanaicker v. E. Elwnalianaicke1; [1995] 4 SCC 156, has clearly held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate title to the parties, is not barred by virtue of the provisions of the said Act. This is a direct decision of this Court on the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision in Vattaicherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deeshithulu and Ors., [1991] Supp. 2 SCC 228. It is sufficient to observe that this decision relates to the provisions under a different Act of Andhra Pradesh. Moreover in R. Manickanaicker, this decision relating to the provisions in the Andhra Pradesh Act was considered and distinguished. In view of the Direct decision of this Court in R. Manickanaicke1; there is no merit in this. appeal. The appeal and the contempt petition are dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal and petition dismissed.
pp. 917–918, margin H