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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 118

DEVADOSS
Rathina Thevan – Appellant
Versus
Packirisami Thevan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Devadoss, J.

1. The plaintiffs suit is on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 16th November 1921, at Kaulalampur, Federated Malay States, for 70 dollars- The defence is limitation. The District Munsif has decreed the suit and defendant prefers this civil revision petition. The petition came on before the learned Chief Justice who directed it to be posted before a Bench of two Judges as the question involved is of some importance.

2. The plaintiff and defendant are natives of Mannargudi taluk, Tanjore District. They went to the Federated Malay States to earn their livelihood; and while they were there, the defendant borrowed 70 dollars of the plaintiff and executed the promissory note sued on. The plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 166 of 1923 on the promissory note in Kaulalampur Magistrates Court in the Native State of Selangor and obtained judgment on 15th March 1925. He filed O.S. 319 of 1924-in the District Munsifs Court at Mannargudi on the foreign judgment obtained by him, and the suit was dismissed as it was found that the Magistrate of Kaulalampur had no jurisdiction to entertain O.S. 166 of 1923 against the defendant. The plaintiff has now brought this su



















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