AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 229 wordsThe only ground of appeal with which we need deal is the ground of jurisdiction, viz., that the District Judge having heard the appeal in part and
remanded issues for trial, he could not transfer the appeal to the Subordinate Judge.
The Advocate-General suggested that in this case the order of transfer was made by the High Court and not by the District Judge. Apparently,
however, no order of transfer was made by the High Court. We must take it then the order was made by the District Court. That being so, the
case is governed by the decision in Kumarasami Reddiar v. Subbaraya Reddiar I. L. R. (1900) M. 324 We agree with this decision. We think it is
more convenient to deal with the present case on the general principles on which Kumarasami Reddiar v. Subbaraya Reddiar I. L. R. (1900) M.
324 was decided than - as the Advocate-General has invited us to do - to take into consideration the fact that in this particular case the individual
District Judge, who heard the appeal in part and remanded the case for findings, was not the District Judge when the appeal was heard.
We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the appeal to the District Judge to be dealt with according to law.
Costs will abide the event.