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

1942 Supreme(Mad) 356

HAPPELL
Pachayakkal – Appellant
Versus
Shanmughavelayudhasami Gopanna Mannadiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Happell, J.

1. The petitioners in this group of civil revision petitions, which all relate to the same question of court-fee, were the legal representatives of the first defendant in three suits for redemption brought by the respondents in the Court of the District Munsiff of Coimbatore. The contentions of the respondents as plaintiffs in these suits were substantially that Act IV of 1938 applied and that they were entitled to possession without paying anything more. The contentions were accepted and a decree was passed directing the defendants to deliver possession of the properties to the respondents. Against this decree the petitioners filed appeals- in the Court of the District Judge of Coimbatore. In their memoranda of grounds of appeal the contention was raised in one form or another that the respondents were not entitled to redemption; but it was also pleaded that Act IV of 1938 did not apply, that the principal amount had not been fully discharged, and that in any case there were improvements, the value of which had to be paid to the appellants before delivery of possession could be given. The learned District Judge was of opinion that in spite of the form of the mem








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