Skip to content


Pachiakutti Udaiyan Vs. Panchanada Patten and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1900)10MLJ204
AppellantPachiakutti Udaiyan
RespondentPanchanada Patten and anr.
Excerpt:
- 1. we think the acting district judge was wrong in holding that the case was barred by section 43 of the civil procedure code. the plaintiff when suing for the possession of the land for which he had admittedly paid the money he now seeks to recover, could not have anticipated the necessity which now arises to claim the repayment of his purchase money and he therefore, could not be expected to claim it in that action.2. the acting district judge having disposed of the case upon this preliminary point alone, we must reverse his decree and remand the case for disposal according to law. costs to abide and follow the event.
Judgment:

1. We think the Acting District Judge was wrong in holding that the case was barred by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff when suing for the possession of the land for which he had admittedly paid the money he now seeks to recover, could not have anticipated the necessity which now arises to claim the repayment of his purchase money and he therefore, could not be expected to claim it in that action.

2. The Acting District Judge having disposed of the case upon this preliminary point alone, we must reverse his decree and remand the case for disposal according to law. Costs to abide and follow the event.


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