Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Nilambur Thacharakkavil … vs Manjeri Puthen Kovilagam … on 11 September, 1914
Equivalent citations: 25 Ind Cas 607
Bench: Ayling, Hannay


JUDGMENT

1. The appellant’s Vakil points out that when the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were added as parties, at the request of the plaintiffs in consequence of the statements in the written statement of the original sole defendant,” the plaint was not amended so as to set forth a cause of action against them. This is so. But we cannot agree with his contention that it. is an incurable illegality. We cannot see that the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 or his client, the present representative of the 4th defendant, were prejudiced by the omission. The 4th defendant claimed title for himself in the suit land, and was allowed to adduce, and did adduce, evidence to prove it. The defect in the plaint was referred to in his written statement, but no issue was taken on the point and it does not seem to have been argued in either of the lower Courts, and even in the present memorandum of appeal grounds it is not very clearly taken. We think the lower Courts and the parties proceeded with the trial just as if the plaint had been amended and we do not think the irregularity would justify our interference. In support of this view we may quote the case of Gaj Kumar Chand v. Lachman Ram 10 Ind. Cas. 503 : 14 C.L.J. 627.

2. The findings of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court are, in our opinion, sufficient to justify the decree, and no error of law is shown in arriving at them. It is argued that the lower Appellate Court should have found exactly how the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 obtained possession–whether by trespass as alleged in the 1st defendant’s written statement, or by the 1st defendant’s connivance. We do not think this is necessary. The Court has found in favour of the respondents’ and against the appellant’s title to the land and in favour of the respondents’ possession, and to the effect that the appellant’s possession only dates from 1906. These findings are enough to support the decree. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Loading Facebook Comments ...
Loading Disqus Comments ...