Skip to content


Ummanga and anr. Vs. Appadorai Pattar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ268
AppellantUmmanga and anr.
RespondentAppadorai Pattar and ors.
Excerpt:
- - plaintiff-appellant has again failed to instruct his vakil to adduce fresh evidence, and respondents do not wish to examine any further witnesses......court and, of the application to this court the case will go back to the district court for fresh findings.20. the findings should be submitted in six weeks from the re-opening of the district court after recess, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.21. in compliance with this order, the district judge submitted the following22. finding:--'certain findings were called for by the high court on 3-3-1908 and submitted by this court on 21-4-08. on plaintiff-appellant's affidavit to the effect that in consequence of the case not having been put down for judgment in the cause list of 3-3-1908 he had no information about the order calling for a finding and that consequently the finding happened to be recorded and returned by the district judge in his absence, the case has.....
Judgment:
ORDER

19. On payment by the 1st respondent to the appellants of the costs of the hearing in the District Court and, of the application to this Court the case will go back to the District Court for fresh findings.

20. The findings should be submitted in six weeks from the re-opening of the District Court after recess, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

21. In compliance with this order, the District Judge submitted the following

22. FINDING:--'Certain findings were called for by the High Court on 3-3-1908 and submitted by this Court on 21-4-08. On plaintiff-appellant's affidavit to the effect that in consequence of the case not having been put down for judgment in the cause list of 3-3-1908 he had no information about the order calling for a finding and that consequently the finding happened to be recorded and returned by the District Judge in his absence, the case has been remanded for fresh findings after taking additional evidence. Plaintiff-appellant has again failed to instruct his vakil to adduce fresh evidence, and respondents do not wish to examine any further witnesses.

23. In my original finding I remarked (para 2) that plaintiff's vakil has no instructions, but I did not mean by that that the case was not argued by plaintiff's vakil, but rarely that plaintiff had not asked him to adduce fresh evidence. The case was fully argued and I submitted my finding. There is still no further evidence before me, nor any further observations by the High Court to guide me to a different decision, so I again find both the issues in the negative for the reasons given in my finding of 21-4-1908.'

The Court delivered the following

24. On the finding which we accept, the decree of the District Court is set aside, and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.

25. The memorandum of objections is dismissed.


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