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

1923 Supreme(Mad) 84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Krishnan
Bolimati Murigadu And Ors.
Versus
Nalla Bapadu And Ors.
Decided On : 28 February, 1923

The court emphasized that the lower court's finding on the cause of action was beyond the scope of the plaint and that it was not within the court's purview to make a finding on the likelihood of success of the cause of action alleged.

Headnote:

Cause of Action - Pauperism - Court's finding on cause of action beyond the scope of plaint

Fact of the Case:

The District Munsif found the petitioners to be paupers but went beyond the plaint to hold that they had no cause of action.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lower court's decision was opposed to established rulings and that it was not open for the court to go beyond the plaint to make a finding on the likelihood of success of the cause of action alleged.

Issues: The issue was whether the lower court's decision to go beyond the scope of the plaint and make a finding on the likelihood of success of the cause of action alleged was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lower court's decision was clearly opposed to established rulings and that it was not within the court's scope to go beyond the plaint to make a finding on the likelihood of success of the cause of action alleged.

Final Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed, the lower court's order was set aside, and the petitioners were given leave to sue in forma pauperis. Costs would abide and follow the result of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Krishnan, J.

1. The order of the District Munsif is clearly opposed to the ruling in Govindasami Pillai v. Municipal Council, Kumbakonam 45 Ind. Cas. 95 : 41 M. 620 : 34 M.L.J : 399. The learned Munsif has found that the petitioners are paupers but has travelled beyond the four corners of the plaint and relied on evidence to hold that the petitioners have "no cause of action." The plaint certainly discloses a cause of action and it was not open to the Court to go beyond it and. come to a finding which, in reality, is a finding that the petitioners are not likely to succeed en the cause of action alleged. The civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the lower Court is set aside and the petitioners are given leave to sue in forma pauperis. Costs will abide and follow the result of the suit.

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 Back to top