Sethu Vs. Krishna and ors.

Sethu vs Krishna and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 16, 1890

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776883

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/776883
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt. C.J. and ;Best, J.
Decided On: Sep 16, 1890
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Limitation Act - Act XV of 1877, Section 10--Suit against a trustee. -

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sethu

Respondent

Krishna and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Suddasook Kootary v. Ram Chunder I.L.R.
Reported In: (1891)ILR14Mad61

Excerpt

limitation act - act xv of 1877, section 10--suit against a trustee. - 1. the lower appellate court's judgment proceeds on the plaint alone, but the judge appears to have lost sight of the fact that the property is stated in the plaint to have been entrusted to first defendant for the benefit of plaintiff and his mother. if such is the case, the plaintiff's suit will not be barred, as section 10 of the limitation act will apply [sethu v. subra-manya i.l.r. 11 mad. 274 and suddasook kootary v. ram chunder i.l.r. 17 cal. 620.2. the lower court's decree is set aside and ' the suit remanded for disposal on the evidence as to the portion which is the subject of this appeal.3. the costs hitherto incurred will be provided for in the revised decree.

Full Judgment

1. The lower Appellate Court's judgment proceeds on the plaint alone, but the Judge appears to have lost sight of the fact that the property is stated in the plaint to have been entrusted to first defendant for the benefit of plaintiff and his mother. If such is the case, the plaintiff's suit will not be barred, as Section 10 of the Limitation Act will apply [Sethu v. Subra-manya I.L.R. 11 Mad. 274 and Suddasook Kootary v. Ram Chunder I.L.R. 17 Cal. 620.

2. The lower Court's decree is set aside and ' the suit remanded for disposal on the evidence as to the portion which is the subject of this appeal.

3. The costs hitherto incurred will be provided for in the revised decree.

Same Parties Sethu vs Krishna and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt. C.J. and ;Best, J.

Property appellate court lower court set aside