Skip to content


Thirumurthy Chetty Vs. Ponnan Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Mad485
AppellantThirumurthy Chetty
RespondentPonnan Chetty
Cases Referred and Bhajahari Saha Banila v. Behary Lal Basak
Excerpt:
- .....appeal must be dismissed with costs.2. the appellant's pleader has quoted the authority of kunja behary bardhan v. gost behary bardhan 22 c.w.n. 66. the suit there dealt with involved the partition of immoveable property and the award could not be enforced piecemeal by giving the plaintiff a decree for a sum of money which was also due under the award.3. there is a remark in that judgment that a suit for enforcement of an award is in essence, a suit for specific performance of a contract. but a suit for the recovery of money as this is can in no sense be treated as a suit to enforce a contract. moreover, the observation that a suit to enforce an award and a suit to enforce a contract are practically the same is opposed to the view taken in earlier decisions of the same court vide sukar.....
Judgment:

1. This is a suit to recover money payable under an award. It is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes Vide Simpson v. McMaster (1890) 13 Mad. 344 and Mizaji Lal v. Partab Kunwar (1919) 42 All. 169. No second appeal lies and therefore this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal must be dismissed with costs.

2. The appellant's pleader has quoted the authority of Kunja Behary Bardhan v. Gost Behary Bardhan 22 C.W.N. 66. The suit there dealt with involved the partition of immoveable property and the award could not be enforced piecemeal by giving the plaintiff a decree for a sum of money which was also due under the award.

3. There is a remark in that judgment that a suit for enforcement of an award is in essence, a suit for specific performance of a contract. But a suit for the recovery of money as this is can in no sense be treated as a suit to enforce a contract. Moreover, the observation that a suit to enforce an award and a suit to enforce a contract are practically the same is opposed to the view taken in earlier decisions of the same Court Vide Sukar Hajam v. Oli Mohammad 25 Ind.Cas. 826 and Bhajahari Saha Banila v. Behary Lal Basak (1900) 33 Cal. 881.

4. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court in the exercise of out revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The result will be as above stated.


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