Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)
V. Kothandapani Chetti vs K.C. Sreemanavedan Raja Alias Valia ... on 31 August, 1933 cites

(Samitti) Ranga Reddi And Ors. vs Vallialuru China Sidda Reddi And Anr. on 9 December, 1926

7. We now come to the third contention pressed by Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar, namely, that in this case the deed of partnership is registered and therefore Article 116 and not Article 106 applies. It is true that there are some cases in which a liberal interpretation is given to Article 116 and in the case of claims arising out of contracts contained in registered instruments, Article 116 was held to apply, though it may be perhaps said that strictly they may not be cases of compensation for breach of the terms of a contract in writing registered. ' But when the cases are carefully examined, I thinly they are distinguishable. One of the earliest cases is a decision in Ranga Reddi v. Chinna Reddi (1891) I.L.R. 14 Mad. 465 : 1 M.L.J. 482, a decision of Muthuswami Ayyar and Shephard, JJ. In that case there was a clause in the registered deed of partnership that if losses were incurred, each party should bear the loss in proportion to his share. The plaintiff alleged that loss had been incurred in the business and sued to recover his share of the loss. The learned Judges held that by reason of this clause Article 116 was applicable. In answer to the argument that where there are specific articles only the special article should be applied and not Article 116, they point out that, where there is a registered instrument, Article 116 displaces certain other specific articles which in the case of an oral or unregistered contract might be applicable.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next