Skip to content


Adusumalli Venkataratnam Vs. Senkarayanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in24Ind.Cas.283
AppellantAdusumalli Venkataratnam
RespondentSenkarayanna
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 152 - arithmetical error repeated in high court to be corrected--civil rides of practice--pleader's fee in appeal front order under old sections 244, 212. - .....of this court begins by saying, 'the district judge is wrong in not making allowance for the cultivation expenses incurred by the defendants.'2. the district judge's finding, as appears from page 8 of the printed papers, is that the defendants nos. 1 and 2 took away in january 1904 almost all the heaped grain that the plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 had harvested in fasli 1313.' we take this finding to mean that, without incurring expenses, for cultivation in fasli 1313, the defendants nos. 1 and 2 took away almost all the produce raised and harvested by the plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 in that fasli. it appears also from other records in the suit that the total harvest raised was 60 candies, of which the plaintiff had taken away only 4 candies and that the remaining 56 candies were taken away.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner (plaintiff) wants an amendment of the order issued by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 30 of 1912 on the ground that the order as drawn up by this office contains clerical and arithmetical errors. The judgment of this Court in the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal decided that the defendants are entitled to a deduction of Rs. 4 per acre in respect of the claim for mesne profits made by the decree-holder in Execution Proceedings No. 75 of 1908 in the lower Court. The judgment of this Court begins by saying, 'The District Judge is wrong in not making allowance for the cultivation expenses incurred by the defendants.'

2. The District Judge's finding, as appears from page 8 of the printed papers, is that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 took away in January 1904 almost all the heaped grain that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had harvested in fasli 1313.' We take this finding to mean that, without incurring expenses, for cultivation in fasli 1313, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 took away almost all the produce raised and harvested by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 in that fasli. It appears also from other records in the suit that the total harvest raised was 60 candies, of which the plaintiff had taken away only 4 candies and that the remaining 56 candies were taken away by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The order of this Court which allows cultivation expenses incurred by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 cannot, therefore, relate to fasli 1313.

3. As regards the other faslis, the arithmetical errors made in the lower Court and repeated in this office in drawing up the order of this Court are not denied and those errors must and will be corrected. 'With regard to the Pleader's fee allowed to the petitioner, the petition out of which the Appeal against Order No. 30 of 1912 was filed in this Court was a petition put in under the old Section 244, read with the old Section 212, and it is, therefore, a petition in execution proceedings in respect of which, under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice, a Pleader's fee at the rate of 1 1/4 per cent. can be allowed, The prayer for allowing 5 per cent. as Vakil's fee is, therefore, rejected.

4. The order drawn by this office will be amended in accordance with the above minutes.

5. There will be no order as to the costs of this petition


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