1956 Supreme(Mad) 264
GOVINDA MENON, RAMASWAMI GOUNDER
Chundri Sreeramalu – Appellant
Versus
Tadavarthi Nagarathnamma – Respondent
Advocates:
D. Suryaprakasa Rao, for Appellants in C.C.C. Appeal No. 59 of 1949.
P. Somasundaram for U. Sethumadhava Rao, for Respondents 1 to 3 in C.C.C. A. No. 59 of 1949 and Appellant, in C.C.C. Appeal No. 64 of 1949.
N. C. V. Ramanujachari and M. V. Nagaramayya for Respondents 4, 5 and 7 to 16 and C. Vasudevan, for 6th Respondent in C.C.C. Appeal No. 59 of 1949.
Ramaswami, J.-These appeals cannot be disposed of either on the grounds of appeal or on the question of Court-fee. We have to reopen the matter and hear the parties to decide whether the Commissioner’s report is correct or the Judge’s decision differing from the Commissioner is correct. If the Commissioner’s report is confirmed, the plaintiffs stand to gain a large amount. If the Judge’s decision is confirmed the plaintiffs will have no case. This is apart from the fact that both as against the Commissioner’s report as well as the Judge’s decision grounds have been taken by the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant, that the accounts are all fabricated and they should not have been relied upon. But it is now too late to dispose of the appeals on this point alone because there is other evidence adduced by both sides regarding what should be charged and what should not be charged.
In regard to the grounds of appeal, though amounts are not mentioned in the grounds, objections relating to these amounts have all been stated except as regards the fabrication of accounts which is a general one. They will have to be gone into as these are first appeals.
Turning to the question of Court-fee, th
Click Here to Read the rest of this document