High Courts(1900) 03 MAD CK 0020

Pachiakutti Udaiyan vs Panchanada Patten and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 15 March 1900 · Citation: (1900) 10 MLJ 204

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 113 words
1.

We think the Acting District Judge was wrong in holding that the case was barred by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff when

suing for the possession of the land for which he had admittedly paid the money he now seeks to recover, could not have anticipated the necessity

which now arises to claim the repayment of his purchase money and he therefore, could not be expected to claim it in that action.

2.

The Acting District Judge having disposed of the case upon this preliminary point alone, we must reverse his decree and remand the case for

disposal according to law. Costs to abide and follow the event.