Skip to content


Puna Karuppana Pillai Vs. Virabadra Pillai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad277
AppellantPuna Karuppana Pillai
RespondentVirabadra Pillai and anr.
Cases ReferredGovinda Munaya Tiruyan v. Bapu
Excerpt:
act xi of 1865 - small cause court---jurisdiction--contract--hindu son's liability for family debt. - section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit..........son for money properly borrowed for the son's marriage, the purpose being a proper and necessary family purpose. the district munaif referes the question whether such a suit, including as it does a demand on the son, is properly within the jurisdiction of the small cause court. he is of opinion that it is not, because the debt (he considers) was the debt of the father, and the liability of the son to pay the debt of the father is a liability not arising by contract, but by hindu law. we think that the suit is cognizable by a court of small causes. the debt is not, properly speaking, the debt of the father, but the debt of the father and son, the father having, in borrowing the money, acted as manager and agent of the family. there is nothing, therefore, to prevent the cognizance of the.....
Judgment:

Innes, J.

1. As we understand the case, the plaintiff sues a father and son for money properly borrowed for the son's marriage, the purpose being a proper and necessary family purpose. The District Munaif referes the question whether such a suit, including as it does a demand on the son, is properly within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. He is of opinion that it is not, because the debt (he considers) was the debt of the father, and the liability of the son to pay the debt of the father is a liability not arising by contract, but by Hindu Law. We think that the suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The debt is not, properly speaking, the debt of the father, but the debt of the father and son, the father having, in borrowing the money, acted as manager and agent of the family. There is nothing, therefore, to prevent the cognizance of the suit by the Small Cause Court.

2. We may further observe that in Govinda Munaya Tiruyan v. Bapu 5 M.H.C.R. 200 it was held that the word 'contract' in the Small Cause Courts Act is not confined to express contracts.


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