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


Madras High Court
Gade Chellapilla Rau Pantulu vs Gade Balaramakrishnama Pantulu on 13 July, 1883
Equivalent citations: (1883) ILR 6 Mad 424
Author: Kindersley
Bench: Kindersley, Hutchins


JUDGMENT

Kindersley, J.

1. Plaintiff and defendant are undivided brothers. Another brother’s widow had obtained a decree for maintenance against both. She attached the house in which plaintiff was residing, and plaintiff thereupon paid the whole sum due to her, and now sues defendant for contribution. The District Munsif has given plaintiff a decree subject to our opinion on the question: “Whether a contribution suit, under the circumstances alleged, can lie in a Small Cause Court? ”

2. As to the general question the decision in Govinda Muneya Tiruyan v. Bapu 5 M.H.C.R. 200, is conclusive. If another High Court has taken a different view, that would not justify the reference, because the District Munsif is bound to follow the law laid down by this Court.

3. It is settled, therefore, that a suit for contribution may be brought before a Small Cause Court. But in the particular circumstances of this case, we think, that the suit could not be sustained, and ought to have been dismissed. The relations of coparceners under Hindu Law are such that one coparcener cannot sue another in respect of a joint family debt, unless he sues for partition.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

75 queries in 0.350 seconds.