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


Madras High Court
Appasami Nayakan vs Varachari And Anr. on 24 July, 1896
Equivalent citations: (1896) ILR 19 Mad 419
Bench: A J Collins, Benson


ORDER

1. We do not understand the grounds on which the District Judge objects to the procedure of the District Munsif in framing the third issue. When the defendants alleged a compromise for consideration in the course of the suit and the plaintiff’s denied it, an issue arose between them, and the District Munsif was right to record it and determine it, so as to enable him to deal with the suit under Section 375, Code of Civil Procedure. That Section 375 was intended to meet cases in which the parties, having agreed to compromise subsequently fall out, has been held in Karuppan v. Ramasami I.L.R. 8 Mad. 482 and Appasami v. Manikam I.L.R. 9 Mad. 103. The District Munsif found that Rs. 80 was paid by the defendants as consideration for the promised withdrawal of the suit by plaintiffs, but that plaintiffs failed to fulfil their promise. We do not think that there is any necessity to consider the validity of the sale-deed which is said to have been executed. The only question is whether the defendants paid the plaintiff’s Rs. 80 on the plaintiffs’ promise to withdraw the suit. If they did, the compromise ought to be enforced.

2. We must ask the District Judge to return a finding on this issue, on the evidence already recorded, within three weeks of the receipt of this order. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the finding has been posted up in this Court.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

9 queries in 0.161 seconds.