Skip to content


Thiruvengadasami Mudaliar Vs. Raghavachary - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ133
AppellantThiruvengadasami Mudaliar
RespondentRaghavachary
Excerpt:
- .....a preliminary objection is taken that it is not open to the appellant's vakil to do this as the learned judge did not vary the report of the commissioner, and no. 292 of the rules of practice on the original side provides that 'a certificate or report of an officer of the court, or commissioner, unless discharged or varied will be taken as conclusive evidence of the facts found therein.' the rule was interpreted by this court in the sense contended for by the respondent's vakil in o. s. appeal no. 8 of 1896, and it appears to us to be unreasonable that the appellate court should go into particulars in an account in regard to which both the commissioner and the judge have come to the same conclusion. we, therefore, follow the decision in that case. there is, however, one term in regard.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant's vakil wishes to argue against the correctness of various items in the account which was referred to the commissioner for report. A preliminary objection is taken that it is not open to the appellant's vakil to do this as the learned Judge did not vary the report of the commissioner, and No. 292 of the Rules of Practice on the original side provides that 'a certificate or report of an officer of the court, or commissioner, unless discharged or varied will be taken as conclusive evidence of the facts found therein.' The rule was interpreted by this Court in the sense contended for by the respondent's vakil in O. S. appeal No. 8 of 1896, and it appears to us to be unreasonable that the appellate court should go into particulars in an account in regard to which both the commissioner and the Judge have come to the same conclusion. We, therefore, follow the decision in that case. There is, however, one term in regard to which the commissioner did not give a decision, but referred it to the Court for determination, that is, whether the plaintiff drew a sum of Rs. 1,070 for his own use as alleged by the defendant. In regard to this, the appellant's vakil has addressed us on the evidence, but we do not think that there is any ground for differing from the conclusion of the learned Judge. Though the abstract accounts were carelessly kept, this does not appear to be so in regard to the day book and the payment shown therein. The Judge accepted that account as correct, and we see no reason to take a contrary view. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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