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

Madras High Court
Krishnan (Minor) By His Next … vs Venkatapath Chett on 2 November, 1905
Equivalent citations: (1906) ILR 29 Mad 318
Bench: Benson, Moore


1. As regards the preliminary objection, we think that it must be over-ruled under the authority of the case of Sah Man Mull v. Kanagasabnathi I.L.R. 16 Mad. 20 followed in Pranal Annee v. Sreeneavsa Mudali C.M.A. Nos. 152 to 156 of 1901.

2. On the merits, we think that the decree (in Original Suit No. 5 of 1900) which is attached is essentially a decree for money. The case of Mallikarjuna Sastri v. Narasimha Rao I.L.R. 24 Mad. 412 relied on by the District Munsif has been recently over-ruled by the Full Bench in Vaidhinathasamy Ayyar v. Somasundaram Pilai I.L.R. 28 Mad. 473. It is therefore open to the appellant to set off against the decree in Original Suit No. 5 of 1900 any decree for money which he holds against the decree-holder therein.

3. We must therefore set aside the order of the Courts below and remand the petition to the District Munsif for disposal according to law. Costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court will abide and follow the result.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 2.541 seconds.