Skip to content


K.M. Koppa Kurup Vs. Velayichettichiar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1922Mad360; (1922)42MLJ583
AppellantK.M. Koppa Kurup
RespondentVelayichettichiar and anr.
Cases ReferredMadras and S. M. Ry. Co. v. Matter Subba Rao
Excerpt:
- .....the small cause court is in accordance with the requirements of order 20, rule 4(1) of the code of civil procedure.2. we are unable, with respect, to follow the line taken by seshagiri aiyar, j. in kandasami chetty v. ramalinga chetty (1920) 12 l.w. 285 so far as his judgment purports to lay down as a rule of law anything different from order 20, rule 4(1) as to what small cause court judgments should contain.3. we think that that the learned judge's judgment was based on his opinion of what the practice should be in such matter rather than on what the law of procedure actually is. it seems to us that order 20, rule 4(1) is self-contained and does not need any expansion or explanation by judicial rulings.4. madras and s. m. ry. co. v. matter subba rao 1 is an instance of interference by.....
Judgment:

1. The Judgment of the Small Cause Court is in accordance with the requirements of Order 20, Rule 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. We are unable, with respect, to follow the line taken by Seshagiri Aiyar, J. in Kandasami Chetty v. Ramalinga Chetty (1920) 12 L.W. 285 so far as his judgment purports to lay down as a rule of law anything different from Order 20, Rule 4(1) as to what Small Cause Court Judgments should contain.

3. We think that that the learned Judge's Judgment was based on his opinion of what the practice should be in such matter rather than on what the law of procedure actually is. It seems to us that Order 20, Rule 4(1) is self-contained and does not need any expansion or explanation by Judicial rulings.

4. Madras and S. M. Ry. Co. v. Matter Subba Rao 1 is an instance of interference by the High Court where a Small Cause Court's decision was reached without reference to material evidence. That is not the case here. It was open to the Small Cause Judge to discredit the promissory note which bore no signatures but only what were alleged to be the defendants' marks seeing that they both totally denied on oath having executed the note.

5. We decline to interfere and dismiss this Civil Revision Petition with costs.


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