Skip to content


Mukkattum Prath Poovatham Kandi Ummacha Vs. Purushothamma Doss Pragji Sait and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.682a
AppellantMukkattum Prath Poovatham Kandi Ummacha
RespondentPurushothamma Doss Pragji Sait and ors.
Excerpt:
small cause court - judgment--what it should contain--civil procedure code (act v of 1908,), order xx, rule 4 - - if, as alleged in the plaint, the property was tarwad property when it was assigned to the plaintiff that would be strong evidence (unless it was also found that the debt due to the 1st defendant was binding on the tarwad) that the transfer was not in fraud of the creditors of the 2nd defendant. 2. the law requires that he should set out in his judgment the points for determination and in the present case his failure to do so has rendered it impossible to form an opinion whether he has considered all the questions raised before him.miller, j.1. it does not appear that the 1st defendant denied that the property was tarwad property, and it is impossible now to say what questions were raised as the district munsif neither sets out the defence nor the points for determination. if, as alleged in the plaint, the property was tarwad property when it was assigned to the plaintiff that would be strong evidence (unless it was also found that the debt due to the 1st defendant was binding on the tarwad) that the transfer was not in fraud of the creditors of the 2nd defendant. the district munsif has not considered these questions and it is impossible to say whether or not they were raised.2. the law requires that he should set out in his judgment the points for determination and in the present case his failure to do so has.....
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1. It does not appear that the 1st defendant denied that the property was tarwad property, and it is impossible now to say what questions were raised as the District Munsif neither sets out the defence nor the points for determination. If, as alleged in the plaint, the property was tarwad property when it was assigned to the plaintiff that would be strong evidence (unless it was also found that the debt due to the 1st defendant was binding on the tarwad) that the transfer was not in fraud of the creditors of the 2nd defendant. The District Munsif has not considered these questions and it is impossible to say whether or not they were raised.

2. The law requires that he should set out in his judgment the points for determination and in the present case his failure to do so has rendered it impossible to form an opinion whether he has considered all the questions raised before him.

3. I, therefore, reverse his decree and remand the suit for disposal according to law.

4. The costs will abide the result.


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