Skip to content


Ummanga and Anr. Vs. Ramakrishna Patter's Son Appadorai Patter and Ors. (02.03.1910 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR34Mad387
AppellantUmmanga and Anr.
RespondentRamakrishna Patter's Son Appadorai Patter and Ors.
Excerpt:
marumakatayam law - tarwad is the heir to the property of a deceased member, subject to the liability to discharge debts of deceased--devolution of property, acquired by or for benefit of tavazhi--survivorship--property acquired by individual member--devolution of. - - plaintiff-appellant has again failed to instruct his vakil to adduce fresh evidence, and respondents do not wish to examine any further witnesses......court and of the application to this court the case will go back to the district court for fresh findings.22. the findings should be submitted in six weeks from the reopening of the district court after recess, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.23. in compliance with this order, the district judge submitted the followingfinding.--certain findings were called for by the high court on 3rd march 1903 and submitted by this court on 21st april 1908. on plaintiff-appellant's affidavit to the effect that in consequence of the case not having been put down for judgment in the cause list of 3rd march l908 he had no information about the order calling for a finding and that consequently the finding happened to be recorded and returned by the district judge in his.....
Judgment:
ORDER

21. On payment by the first respondent to the appellants of the costs of the hearing in the District Court and of the application to this Court the case will go back to the District Court for fresh findings.

22. The findings should be submitted in six weeks from the reopening of the District Court after recess, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

23. In compliance with this order, the District Judge submitted the following

FINDING.--Certain findings were called for by the High Court on 3rd March 1903 and submitted by this Court on 21st April 1908. On plaintiff-appellant's affidavit to the effect that in consequence of the case not having been put down for judgment in the cause list of 3rd March l908 he had no information about the order calling for a finding and that consequently the finding happened to be recorded and returned by the District Judge in his absence, the case has been remanded for fresh findings after taking additional evidence. Plaintiff-appellant has again failed to instruct his vakil to adduce fresh evidence, and respondents do not wish to examine any further witnesses.

2. In my original finding I remarked (paragraph 2) that plaintiff's vakil has no instructions, but I did not mean by that that the case was not argued by plaintiff's vakil, but merely that plaintiff had not asked him to adduce fresh evidence. The case was fully argued and I submitted my finding. There is still no further evidence before me, nor any further observations by the High Court to guide me to a different decision, so I again find both the issues in the negative for the reasons given in my finding of 21st April 1908.

24. This Second Appeal and the Memorandum of Objections coming on for final hearing after the return of the second finding of the lower Appellate Court, the Court delivered the following


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