Madan Mohan Garg vs Bohra Ram Lal on 13 November, 1933
He argues that as the plaintiff now owes the defendant something in money for the oven, the defendant may be taken to have allowed the plaintiff to retain the: cost of the oven, in other words to have repaid the plaintiff his claim to rent and something more also. The argument is ingenious, but it is against the weight of authority. I am told that there are a number of cases in the unauthorised reports which support the view now put forward. But only one of them has been brought to my notice; and though the learned Judge who decided the case sought to distinguish an equitable set-off from a legal set-off and to explain why in the latter case Court fee is required but hone is required in the former case, I think, with respect, that he has not been very successful in so doing : see Madan Mohan Garg v. Bohra Ram Lal Moreover the learned Judge does not refer to any authorities. I am told also that among the other cases also reported in the unauthorised reports dealing with this point no authorities have been cited.