TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (8) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T. Harindra Nath, N. Sudhakaran and M.R.K. Pillai for Respondent. JUDGMENT: A.D. Koshal, This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 3rd of April, 1969 of the High Court of Kerala rendered in a Second Appeal arising from a suit for partition of immovable property. 2. The suit was filed in the Court of Munsiff at Parappanangadi in the year 1938. That Court passed a pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Ors.) immediately took an objection that the Manjeri Court had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the application and that the matter should have been agitated in the Court of Munsiff at Parappananagadi. The objection was overruled by the Manjeri Court which proceeded to partition the property by metes and bounds and ultimately passed a final decree in that behalf on 9th July, 1968. An appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned counsel for the parties on the question of jurisdiction. An unfortunate aspect of this litigation has been that although that question has been agitated already in three courts and has been bone of contention between that parties for more than a decade, the real provision of law which clinches it was never put forward on behalf of the appellant before us nor was adverted to by the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are settled, at or before such settlement. (3) There has been a consequent failure of justice. All these three conditions must co-exist. Now in the present case conditions Nos. 1 and 2 are no doubt fully satisfied; but then before the two appellate Courts below could allow the objection to be taken, it was further necessary that a case of failure of justice on account of the place of suing ha....