Skip to content


Yenathi Naidu Vs. Kujjaligan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1905)15MLJ223
AppellantYenathi Naidu
RespondentKujjaligan
Excerpt:
- bhashyam aiyangar, j.1. there were two points for determination viz., (1) whether the bond was executed and if so (2) whether there was consideration for it. the only decision recorded is 'finding negative.' it is impossible to say what the decision is whether it is that the bond is genuine but there was no consideration or that the bond itself is not proved. the district munsif's judgment cannot, therefore, be regarded as a judgment in law within the meaning of even paragraph 1 of section 203, c.p.c.2. the decree is accordingly reversed and the suit remanded for being disposed of according to law upon the evidence already on record after hearing both parties on a day to be appointed for the purpose. costs will be costs in the cause.
Judgment:

Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.

1. There were two points for determination viz., (1) whether the bond was executed and if so (2) whether there was consideration for it. The only decision recorded is 'Finding Negative.' It is impossible to say what the decision is whether it is that the bond is genuine but there was no consideration or that the bond itself is not proved. The District Munsif's judgment cannot, therefore, be regarded as a judgment in law within the meaning of even paragraph 1 of Section 203, C.P.C.

2. The decree is accordingly reversed and the suit remanded for being disposed of according to law upon the evidence already on record after hearing both parties on a day to be appointed for the purpose. Costs will be costs in the cause.


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