SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(Mad) 166

RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
K. R. Kumaraswami Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Krishnaswami Chetti. – Respondent


Advocates:
T.R.Thyagarajan for Petitioner.
B.Santhanam for Respondent.

Judgment

The only question raised by the petitioner in this revision petition is whether the suit filed by him which was dismissed by the learned District Munsiff of Tiruppur is barred by limitation as held by the Court below.

The transactions out of which this suit arose came about this way. The plaintiff used to entrust certain metal sheets to the defendant who is a metal worker for fabricating vessels. This practice went on for a considerable time. But the last dealing had between the parties was in 1944-45. The present suit has; been filed in 1951 for the recovery of Rs.268-5-0 claimed to be the balance due to the plaintiff on account of these transactions resulting from non-delivery to him either of the fabricated vessels or the return of the sheets supplied by him. The learned District Munsiff has dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff was that the case was governed by section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act the allegation being that there was an express trust for a specific purpose created by the entrustment of the metal sheets to the defendant. The learned District Munsiff held that it was an ordinar


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top