Skip to content


Venkatachalapathi Iyengar Vs. Devaraja Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad970
AppellantVenkatachalapathi Iyengar
RespondentDevaraja Pillai
Excerpt:
- .....in respect of money paid by plaintiff in excess of his share of the amount due on a joint promissory-note. the plaintiff and defendant-jointly purchased a land for rs. 2,000. they executed a promissory-note for rs. 950 to the vendor. the plaintiff's-case is that he owed only rs. 200 out of the note with the corresponding interest, whereas the defendant contended that both were liable equally on the note. plaintiff's suit is to recover what according to him, he paid in excess.2. the question is whether the suit falls under article 41 of provincial small cause courts act. i think the words 'money due from a co-sharer' in article 41 mean money due from him as such. in this case, the money is due from the defendant by reason of his being one of the makers of the promissory note. the.....
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. The suit is for contribution from the defendant in respect of money paid by plaintiff in excess of his share of the amount due on a joint promissory-note. The plaintiff and defendant-jointly purchased a land for Rs. 2,000. They executed a promissory-note for Rs. 950 to the vendor. The plaintiff's-case is that he owed only Rs. 200 out of the note with the corresponding interest, whereas the defendant contended that both were liable equally on the note. Plaintiff's suit is to recover what according to him, he paid in excess.

2. The question is whether the suit falls under Article 41 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. I think the words 'money due from a co-sharer' in Article 41 mean money due from him as such. In this case, the money is due from the defendant by reason of his being one of the makers of the promissory note. The fact that the promissory-note was itself executed by reason of the joint purchase does not make the amount, one due from a co-sharer. I do not think the suit falls under Article 41. The result is that the suit is of a small cause nature and there is no second appeal.

3. On this ground, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. As respondent has not given notice of the preliminary objection, he, will be entitled to only one-fourth of the costs.


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