Skip to content


Kasim Ahmed Jewa Vs. NaraIn Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1910)12BOMLR646
AppellantKasim Ahmed Jewa
RespondentNaraIn Chetty
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
practice-dismissal of the appeal-amendment of the decree under appeal- absence of petition of appeal by the respondents.;their lordships dismissed the appeal, but amended the decree appealed against by providing for interest subsequent to the decree in accordance with the prayer in the petition for special leave to appeal presented by the respondents, who did not lodge their petition of appeal as required under the judicial committee rules, 1908. - - the evidence is extremely weak......to say that in their lordships' opinion the judgment of the chief court of lower burma is right, and their lordships agree with it for the reasons which they have given, and which it is not necessary for their lordships to repeat.3. with reference to the two clerks, their evidence is not sufficient to support the defendants' case. the evidence is extremely weak. they say it is customary to endorse on a promissory note the payments made on account. there is no endorsement on the promissory note, and there is no corroboration of their statement, which is positively denied on the other side.4. their lordships will, therefore, humbly advise his majesty that the appeal must be dismissed. the appellant will pay the costs of the appeal.5. the judgment of the chief court will be amended by the.....
Judgment:

Macnaghten, J.

1. This is a pure question a fact. Their Lordships see no reason to disturb the judgment of the Court from which the appeal is brought.

2. It does not appear to their Lordships necessary to go into the affirmative case made by Mr. De Gruyther. It is enough to say that in their Lordships' opinion the judgment of the Chief Court of Lower Burma is right, and their Lordships agree with it for the reasons which they have given, and which it is not necessary for their Lordships to repeat.

3. With reference to the two clerks, their evidence is not sufficient to support the defendants' case. The evidence is extremely weak. They say it is customary to endorse on a promissory note the payments made on account. There is no endorsement on the promissory note, and there is no corroboration of their statement, which is positively denied on the other side.

4. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal must be dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the appeal.

5. The judgment of the Chief Court will be amended by the providing for interest subsequent to the decree in accordance with the prayer of the petition presented by the respondents.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //