High CourtsFull Bench(1902) 11 MAD CK 0006

Periakaruppan vs Palaniappa

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 November 1902 · Citation: (1903) 13 MLJ 210

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subrahmania Aiyar, J · Davies, J

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

8 paragraphs · 154 words

Subrahmania Aiyar, J.—I see no reason for reducing the amount awarded as damages. Nor, in my opinion, is there any reason to disturbing

the order as to costs made in the courts below in the due exercise of the discretion vested in them by law. I would dismiss the second appeal with

costs.

Davies, J.

2.

I agree that there is no reason for reducing the damages awarded to the plaintiff. I am, however, unable to support the order of the courts below

granting the plaintiff his costs on the whole amount of his claim instead of only on the amount decreed him in as much as it is opposed to the

uniform practice of the courts in this Presidency, which is to grant costs only on the amount decreed. Velu Pillai v. Ghose Mahomed ILR 17 M.

293.

u/s 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.