Kulasekara Naicker And Others v. Jagadambal Ammal And Others

[This Original Side Appeal first came on for hearing on 27th day of November 1918 before their Lordships, the Chief Justice and Napier, J.]

This is an appeal from an order of Coutts Trotter, J., passed on review of taxation by the taxing officer under Rr. 37 and 38 of the Original Side Fees Rules. We find some difficulty in reconciling Saravana Mudaliar v. Rajagopala Chetty (17 M.L.J. 569) which decides that there is no appeal, with the principles laid down in the Full Bench case in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar (I.L.R. 35 Mad., 1). We accordingly refer to a Full Bench the question whether in the present case an appeal lies as from a judgment under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent.

[This Original Side Appeal came on for hearing in pursuance of the Order of Reference before the Full Bench as constituted above.]

[1] Accepting the interpretation put upon the word judgment in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar (1910) I.L.R. 35 Mad. 1 : 21 M.L.J. 1, the most recent decision on the subject of a Full Bench of this Court, we think that an order as to costs is not the leas a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent because it relates to costs only. We do not think that the observations of Sir Arnold White, Chief Justice, in the later case in Numberumal Chettiar v. Krishnajee (1914) 26 M.L.J. 357, are opposed to this view. The one earlier decision of the Full Bench in Saravana Mudaliar v. Rajagopal Chetty (1903) 17 M.L.J. 569 (F.B.), was binding on the Bench in that case and the learned Chief Justice merely distinguished it by showing that it was inapplicable to the facts of that case. We answer the question in the affirmative.