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

1924 Supreme(Mad) 786

KRISHNAN
Sankaran Unni Minor – Appellant
Versus
Kummakattil Ezhuvan KandanS Son – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Krishnan, J.

1. In this case, the plaintiff obtained a compromise decree, by which if money was paid within the 30th Meenom 1907 (12th April, 1922) the sum of Rs. 285 was to be taken in full satisfaction of the claim. The decree provided that in default of such payment, the defendants were to pay the plaintiff the whole of the plaint amount with costs. The defendant put in an application to the lower Court to have satisfaction entered of the decree, on the ground that he tendered the amount of Rs. 285 to the plaintiff on the 12th April, 1922, but as the plaintiff did not receive that amount, he sent it by money order to the plaintiff, which again was refused and he therefore had the money ready with him to be deposited in Court and to give, a chellan to make that deposit. That was on the reopening day of the Court, after the midsummer holidays, on the 12th June 1922. The chellan was granted and the money was deposited, on the re-opening day. The lower Court has found that the alleged tender out of Court is not true and in Revision, I must accept that finding. But it has not considered the question whether the deposit into Court on the re-opening day was not a sufficient comp

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