Skip to content


Manikkavasaka Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhiar and ors. Vs. Sundaram Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.1141
AppellantManikkavasaka Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhiar and ors.
RespondentSundaram Pillai
Cases ReferredManjunatha Kamti v. Devamma
Excerpt:
review - admissibility of review made under mistaken view. - miller, j.1. i am not prepared to hold that the subordinate judge was wrong in admitting the review. his order has not been printed and put before me, but apparently he was of opinion that he had committed a mistake in excluding the unstamped acknowledgment from his consideration. possibly on that point he was wrong and had really committed no mistake but that does not prevent the admissibility of the review.2. the decision on review may be supported on the ground that the settlement of account signed by the 3rd and 4th defendants, who had, as the subordinate judge finds, authority to adjust accounts, brings the case within article 64 schedule ii of the limitation act of 1877 which governs the case. vide--manjunatha kamti v. devamma alias gomathiamma 26 m.k 186. 3. the decree ought to.....
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1. I am not prepared to hold that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in admitting the review. His order has not been printed and put before me, but apparently he was of opinion that he had committed a mistake in excluding the unstamped acknowledgment from his consideration. Possibly on that point he was wrong and had really committed no mistake but that does not prevent the admissibility of the review.

2. The decision on review may be supported on the ground that the settlement of account signed by the 3rd and 4th defendants, who had, as the Subordinate Judge finds, authority to adjust accounts, brings the case within Article 64 Schedule II of the Limitation Act of 1877 which governs the case. Vide--Manjunatha Kamti v. Devamma alias Gomathiamma 26 M.k 186.

3. The decree ought to have been against the 1st defendant only and against him as trustee of the Sri Panchanadaswami Koil in Trivadi. This is clear from the plaint itself.

4. Subject to this modification the petition is dismissed. The parties must bear their own costs.


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