Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.43 seconds)
Pandiri Veeranna vs Mandavilli Subba Row And Ors. on 2 November, 1915 cites

Yellammal vs Ayyappan Naick on 30 August, 1912

Mr. T. Rangachariar lastly fell back upon Article 62 or Article 120 which articles were referred to in the decision in Yellammal v. Ayyappa Naick (1914) 26 M.L.J. 166 : I.L.R. 38 M. 972. But the suit in that case was not framed as a suit for compensation for injury caused by wrongful attachment but for the recovery of money which a debtor paid into court under a garnishee order and which the defendant (decree-holder) obtained from court, though it belonged to a third person (plaintiff) and not to the judgment debtor. The learned judges held that the suit fell directly within Article 62 which relates to a claim for the recovery of money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant to the plaintiff's use. The present suit can, by no stretch of language be deemed to be a suit for the recovery of the plaintiff's money which went into defendant's hands. Hence Article 62 can have no application. As regards Article 120, it should not be applied till all the other articles are exhausted. If Article 29 does not apply (of which I am not quite sure) Article 36 seems to me to clearly apply to this case. That is the residuary article in respect of suits for compensation for any mal-feasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance independent of contract not expressly provided for in any of the other articles and the term is two years, to commence from the date "when the malfeasance or misfeasance or non-feasance takes place". As said in Rustomji's (Limitation) Article 36 is a general article for suits for compensation for all possible acts and omissions commonly known as torts; that is, wrongs independent of contract and which are not provided for by other articles.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1