N VENKATARAMIER Vs. VAITHILINGA THAMBIRAN THE DAKSHINAM KARWAR AND AGENT OF AMBALAVANA PANDARA SANNADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit instituted under Section 213 of the Estates Land Act before a Deputy Collector decreed by him and dismissed by the District Judge on appeal. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies to the High Court from the decree of the District Judge, and is based on a contention that Section 192 applies the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code only to the procedure in proceedings authorised by the Act, and not so as to give an appeal which the Act does, not give.

(2.) In my opinion, this objection must fail, The language of section ]92 of the Act does not support it, and there are two cases under the repealed Rent Recovery Act of 1865 which point the other way. Ganne Kotappa v. Venkataramiah (1890)10 M.L.J., 398 and Veeraswamy v. Manager, Pittapur Estate (1903) I.L.R., 26 Mad., 518.

(3.) Reliance was placed on the recent case in the Privy Council Rangoon Botatoung Co., Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon (1913) I.L.R., 40 Calc., 21 (P.C.), in which their Lordships held that no appeal lies as of right to His Majesty from a decision of the Chief Court of Lower Burma confirming the award of a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act in the town of Rangoon.