Skip to content


Thirumurthy Chetty Vs. Ponnan Chetty Alias Karuppan Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in76Ind.Cas.843; (1924)46MLJ51
AppellantThirumurthy Chetty
RespondentPonnan Chetty Alias Karuppan Chetty
Cases Referred and Bhajahari Saha Banila v. Behary Lal Basak
Excerpt:
- .....appeal must be dismissed with costs.2. the appellant's pleader has quoted the authority of kunja behary bardhan v. gost behary bardhan (1917) 22 cwn 66. the suit there dealt with involved the partition of immoveable property and the award could not be enforced piecemeal by giving the plaintiff a decree for a sum of money which was also due under the award.3. there is a remark in that judgment that a suit for enforcement of an award is in essence a suit for specific performance of a contract. but a suit for the recovery of money, as this is, can in no sense he treated as a suit to enforce a contract. moreover, the observation that a suit to enforce an award and a suit to enforce a contract are practically the same is opposed to the view taken in earlier decisions of the same court [vide.....
Judgment:

1. This is a suit to recover money payable under an award. It is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes [Vide Simpson v. McMaster ILR (1890) M 344 and Mizaji Lal v. Partab Kunwar ILR (1919) A 169]. No second appeal lies and therefore this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal must be dismissed with costs.

2. The appellant's pleader has quoted the authority of Kunja Behary Bardhan v. Gost Behary Bardhan (1917) 22 CWN 66. The suit there dealt with involved the partition of immoveable property and the award could not be enforced piecemeal by giving the plaintiff a decree for a sum of money which was also due under the award.

3. There is a remark in that judgment that a suit for enforcement of an award is in essence a suit for specific performance of a contract. But a suit for the recovery of money, as this is, can in no sense he treated as a suit to enforce a contract. Moreover, the observation that a suit to enforce an award and a suit to enforce a contract are practically the same is opposed to the view taken in earlier decisions of the same Court [Vide Sukar Hajam v. Oli Mohammad (1914) 25 I.C. 826 and Bhajahari Saha Banila v. Behary Lal Basak ILR (1900) C 881 ].

4. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court in the exercise of our revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The result will be as above slated.


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