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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 384

MADHAVAN NAIR
P. C. Muthu Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
R. M. Venkatachalam Chetty – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Two points arise for determination in this second appeal, (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of Rs. 700 claimed by him in the plaint and (2) whether his suit is barred by limitation. The lower Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the return, of the money because the breach of the contract under which the money was claimed was due to the default on the part of the defendants : But agreeing,, with the first Court it held that the suit was barred by limitation and hence the. suit was dismissed. On the merits the lower Courts finding was that there was really no contract entered into between the parties as each one had a different idea as to the nature of the contract that he was entering into with the other and that the contract was the result of a mistake. This would mean there was no contract at all between the parties. If So, I could not understand how the question of default is material. On the merits I am inclined to hold that the plaintiff will be entitled to get a refund of Rs. 700 which he has paid if the claim is not barred by limitation.

2. The question of limitation is the important point for







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