Skip to content


Malaya Pillai Nadan Vs. Venganan Chetty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Mad100(1); 24Ind.Cas.764
AppellantMalaya Pillai Nadan
RespondentVenganan Chetty and ors.
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), schedule ii, article 31 - suit against agent for value of goods not accoimted for, whether suit for account--jurisdiction of small cause court. - .....i cannot interfere under section 25 of the small cause courts act and i dismiss the petition with.....
Judgment:

Miller, J

1. It is contended that this is a suit for an account and so not cognisable by a Small Cause Court. On the plaint the suit is not a suit for an account : but it has not been decided on the allegation in the plaint but on admission made by the defendant in the trial.

2. The defendant admitted that he received 45 bags of chillies weighing 189 maunds and sold on the plaintiffs' behalf 39 bags containing 177 maunds and alleged that the diminution was due to drying. Even if the suit be taken to ho based on a claim for the price of 12 Maunds not remitted to the plaintiffs, it will not be a suit for an account.

3. The claim was, therefore, cognizable by the Small Cause Court and on the admission of the defendant that less was sold than was delivered for sale, he had to show how he had disposed of the balance and the Subordinate Judge has disbelieved his explanation.

4. I cannot interfere under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act and I dismiss the petition with costs.


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