Skip to content


Pinnamraju Raghunadha Raju Vs. Burra Mariyamma and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad980
AppellantPinnamraju Raghunadha Raju
RespondentBurra Mariyamma and anr.
Excerpt:
- 1. we are of opinion that 'the decision of the district munsif cannot be supported. section 73, madras village courts act, as amended, shows that the court is not bound to interfere even if there is an error of law unless the decree is unjust, or, in other words, if substantial justice has been done. error of law should not be a ground for interference by the district munsif. in the present case no plea of limitation was raised and the findings of the village court are clear that there were dealings between the parties and that the amount claimed is due. the district munsif's view that the evidence disclosed that there might be question of limitation does not give him any right to interfere. we set aside the order of the district munsif. the decree of the village court will stand.
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that 'the decision of the District Munsif cannot be supported. Section 73, Madras Village Courts Act, as amended, shows that the Court is not bound to interfere even if there is an error of law unless the decree is unjust, or, in other words, if substantial justice has been done. Error of law should not be a ground for interference by the District Munsif. In the present case no plea of limitation was raised and the findings of the village Court are clear that there were dealings between the parties and that the amount claimed is due. The District Munsif's view that the evidence disclosed that there might be question of limitation does not give him any right to interfere. We set aside the order of the District Munsif. The decree of the village Court will stand.


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