Skip to content


Gade Chellapilla Rau Pantulu Vs. Gade Balaramakrishnama Pantulu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad424
AppellantGade Chellapilla Rau Pantulu
RespondentGade Balaramakrishnama Pantulu
Cases ReferredGovinda Muneya Tiruyan v. Bapu
Excerpt:
small cause court - jurisdiction--contribution, suit for--hindu law--coparceners--family debt. - .....plaintiff thereupon paid the whole sum due to her, and now sues defendant for contribution. the district munsif has given plaintiff a decree subject to our opinion on the question: 'whether a contribution suit, under the circumstances alleged, can lie in a small cause court? '2. as to the general question the decision in govinda muneya tiruyan v. bapu 5 m.h.c.r. 200 is conclusive. if another high court has taken a different view, that would not justify the reference, because the district munsif is bound to follow the law laid down by this court.3. it is settled, therefore, that a suit for contribution may be brought before a small cause court. but in the particular circumstances of this case, we think, that the suit could not be sustained, and ought to have been dismissed. the.....
Judgment:

Kindersley, J.

1. Plaintiff and defendant are undivided brothers. Another brother's widow had obtained a decree for maintenance against both. She attached the house in which plaintiff was residing, and plaintiff thereupon paid the whole sum due to her, and now sues defendant for contribution. The District Munsif has given plaintiff a decree subject to our opinion on the question: 'Whether a contribution suit, under the circumstances alleged, can lie in a Small Cause Court? '

2. As to the general question the decision in Govinda Muneya Tiruyan v. Bapu 5 M.H.C.R. 200 is conclusive. If another High Court has taken a different view, that would not justify the reference, because the District Munsif is bound to follow the law laid down by this Court.

3. It is settled, therefore, that a suit for contribution may be brought before a Small Cause Court. But in the particular circumstances of this case, we think, that the suit could not be sustained, and ought to have been dismissed. The relations of coparceners under Hindu Law are such that one coparcener cannot sue another in respect of a joint family debt, unless he sues for partition.


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