Skip to content


Srambikkal Maliakkal Moideen Koya and anr. Vs. Kattuparambath Moideen Kutti Haji and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad1229; 90Ind.Cas.968; (1925)49MLJ354
AppellantSrambikkal Maliakkal Moideen Koya and anr.
RespondentKattuparambath Moideen Kutti Haji and anr.
Cases ReferredKandaswami Chetti v. Raualinga Chetti
Excerpt:
- - no doubt if the defendant was bound to perform the contract within a reasonable time and failed to do so he would have been guilty of breach of contract. on the whole, i am satisfied that the judgment before me does not comply with the provisions of law and is also otherwise very unsatisfactory......(1920) 12 lw 285. i should have been disinclined to interfere in this ease if at any rate the district munsif had, while setting out the points for determination according to him, at least stated his decision with regard to each separately. but when i find that he has clubbed them all together and made a statement merely to the effect that he finds all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, 1 cannot regard it as a compliance even with the provisions of order 20, rule 4. taking one of the points for determination, namely, 'did the defendant commit breach of contract as alleged by the plaintiffs,' and taking the words of the district munsif, the finding should be deemed to be that the defendants did commit breach of contract. it is not at all clear how the district munsif found that.....
Judgment:

Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. The judgment of the Lower Court in this Small Cause case is an extremely unsatisfactory one. The learned District Munsif says that he finds all the issues for the plaintiffs. My attention has been drawn to the terms of Order 20, Rule 4 and the decision of this Court reported in K.M. Koppa Kurup v. Velayichettichiar : AIR1922Mad360 . In that case Spencer and Krishnan, JJ. laid down that it was enough for a Small Cause Judge to follow the provisions of Order 2O, Rule 4, Clause (1), and the learned Judges further proceeded to observe that they are unable to follow the line taken by Seshagiri Aiyar, J. in Kandaswami Chetti v. Raualinga Chetti (1920) 12 LW 285. I should have been disinclined to interfere in this ease if at any rate the District Munsif had, while setting out the points for determination according to him, at least stated his decision with regard to each separately. But when I find that he has clubbed them all together and made a statement merely to the effect that he finds all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, 1 cannot regard it as a compliance even with the provisions of Order 20, Rule 4. Taking one of the points for determination, namely, 'Did the defendant commit breach of contract as alleged by the plaintiffs,' and taking the words of the District Munsif, the finding should be deemed to be that the defendants did commit breach of contract. It is not at all clear how the District Munsif found that the breach came to be committed by the defendants. This was not a case in which any time was fixed for the performance of the contract and the defend-ant, in his written statement, setout that he was not only ready and willing to deliver to the plaintiffs the balance of the cocoanuts but that the plaintiffs refused to accept delivery of the same. No doubt if the defendant was bound to perform the contract within a reasonable time and failed to do so he would have been guilty of breach of contract. But that would undoubtedly be a point for determination and I see no indication whatever in the judgment that the, attention of the learned District Munsif was at all drawn to this feature of the case or that he came to any conclusion or decision with regard thereto. On the whole, I am satisfied that the judgment before me does not comply with the provisions of law and is also otherwise very unsatisfactory. I, therefore, set it aside and direct that the case be remanded to the Lower Court for being disposed of according to law. If the parties desire they would be at liberty to adduce such evidence or fresh evidence as may be deemed fit. Costs in this Court will be reserved and be dealt with and disposed of by the Lower Court as part of its order for costs.


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