Skip to content


Nawab Sulaiman Alikhan and ors. Vs. Menna Venkatanarayana Garu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in91Ind.Cas.166
AppellantNawab Sulaiman Alikhan and ors.
RespondentMenna Venkatanarayana Garu and ors.
Excerpt:
contribution, suit for - co-judgment-debtors--decree, form of. - .....o.s. no. 358 of 1904 on the file of the court of the principal district munsif of masulipatam. a joint decree was passed against the two defendants by the court of first instance. on appeal the subordinate judge departed from the usual rule of passing several decrees against the two defendants because he was under the impression that there was only one judgment-debtor in the said o.s. no. 358 of 1904 and the others were all his legal representatives the report submitted by the subordinate judge shows that on this assumption he was wrong. it follows, therefore, that the joint decree against the two defendants should not have been passed by the lower court. so far as the first defendant is concerned the lower court's decree is modified and the plaintiff will get a decree for half the.....
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The first defendant is the appellant. He is now dead and his legal representatives have been brought on record. Plaintiff's suit was one for contribution against the persons who were along with others, judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 358 of 1904 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Masulipatam. A joint decree was passed against the two defendants by the Court of first instance. On appeal the Subordinate Judge departed from the usual rule of passing several decrees against the two defendants because he was under the impression that there was only one judgment-debtor in the said O.S. No. 358 of 1904 and the others were all his legal representatives The report submitted by the Subordinate Judge shows that on this assumption he was wrong. It follows, therefore, that the joint decree against the two defendants should not have been passed by the lower Court. So far as the first defendant is concerned the lower Court's decree is modified and the plaintiff will get a decree for half the amount against the assets of the first defendant in the hands of his legal representatives. In other respects the decree of the lower Court, will stand. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs. The first respondent's Vakil's fee in this case is fixed at Rs. 35.


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