Skip to content


Charapotta Kanur Kesavan Nayar Vs. Kummankuzhi Ezhuvan Kunchu's son Velu (01.05.1940 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Mad909; (1940)2MLJ238
AppellantCharapotta Kanur Kesavan Nayar
RespondentKummankuzhi Ezhuvan Kunchu's son Velu
Excerpt:
- - the village court was satisfied by comparison of the signature with that found on an admitted document and by a consideration of the admitted circumstances that the promissory note was executed by the defendant......the signature with that found on an admitted document and by a consideration of the admitted circumstances that the promissory note was executed by the defendant. the mere fact that a decree was given on a lesser degree of proof than would have been required by the court of a district munsif is not sufficient to constitute a material irregularity justifying interference in revision. there has been no injustice. i set aside the order of the district munsif and restore the decree with costs here and in the district munsif's court.
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. I do not consider that the District; Munsif is right in treating the lack of direct evidence of execution of the promissory note as a material irregularity sufficient to justify interference under Section 73 of the Village Courts Act. The village Court was satisfied by comparison of the signature with that found on an admitted document and by a consideration of the admitted circumstances that the promissory note was executed by the defendant. The mere fact that a decree was given on a lesser degree of proof than would have been required by the Court of a District Munsif is not sufficient to constitute a material irregularity justifying interference in revision. There has been no injustice. I set aside the order of the District Munsif and restore the decree with costs here and in the District Munsif's Court.


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