Skip to content


Thimmarazu Venkata Kutumba Rao Vs. Thimmarazu Venkatappa (of Unsound) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Mad483; (1924)46MLJ119
AppellantThimmarazu Venkata Kutumba Rao
RespondentThimmarazu Venkatappa (of Unsound) and anr.
Cases ReferredSarvi Begum v. Haider Shah
Excerpt:
- .....incompetent if the person who actually pays the money into the treasury is not a pleader or recognised agent within the meaning of order 3, rule 1. the decision in sarvi begum v. haider shah (1917) 9 alj 12 is distinguishable by the fact that there the application under the section of the code was not a competent one. the lower court has found that the payer in this case was the vakil's clerk.2. rule 131 of the civil rules of practice only requires that the lodgment schedule should be signed by the payer. it is not questioned that the money paid into court was that of the respondents. the applicant is the guardian of the persons entitled to apply, the money is their money; the mere fact that the vakil sent the money by the hand of his clerk instead of taking it to the treasury.....
Judgment:

1. The application under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P. Code was made by the authorised vakil of a person entitled to apply. We are not prepared to hold that the words ' on his depositing in Court ' make the application incompetent if the person who actually pays the money into the Treasury is not a pleader or recognised agent within the meaning of Order 3, Rule 1. The decision in Sarvi Begum v. Haider Shah (1917) 9 ALJ 12 is distinguishable by the fact that there the application under the section of the Code was not a competent one. The lower Court has found that the payer in this case was the vakil's clerk.

2. Rule 131 of the Civil Rules of Practice only requires that the lodgment schedule should be signed by the payer. It is not questioned that the money paid into Court was that of the respondents. The applicant is the guardian of the persons entitled to apply, the money is their money; the mere fact that the vakil sent the money by the hand of his clerk instead of taking it to the treasury himself will not invalidate the application.

3. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is also dismissed but without costs.


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