Subrahmaniam Chetti Vs. Authinarayanan

Subrahmaniam Chetti vs Authinarayanan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 05, 1897

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/780913

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/780913
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Oct 05, 1897
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

- - 234 is clearly distinguishable from the present. 2. Here the two suits present two perfectly distinct grounds of claim. We have no copy of the will before us, and it may well be that the one claim is even inconsistent with the other.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subrahmaniam Chetti

Respondent

Authinarayanan

Legal References

Cases Referred: Kameswar Pershad v. Rajkumari Buttun Koer L.R.
Reported In: (1897)7MLJ288

Excerpt

- - 234 is clearly distinguishable from the present. 2. here the two suits present two perfectly distinct grounds of claim. we have no copy of the will before us, and it may well be that the one claim is even inconsistent with the other.1. we think kameswar pershad v. rajkumari buttun koer l.r. 19 i.a. 234 is clearly distinguishable from the present. there the judicial committee held that the agreement on which the second suit was founded ought to have been put forward in the first suit.2. here the two suits present two perfectly distinct grounds of claim. in the first suit, the plaintiff claims by virtue of an alleged adoption. in the second suit, it is a will which is put forward as giving title to the property. a. person who takes by adoption is obviously in a totally different position from one who takes under a will. we have no copy of the will before us, and it may well be that the one claim is even inconsistent with the other.3. we must dismiss the appeal with costs.

Full Judgment

1. We think Kameswar Pershad v. Rajkumari Buttun Koer L.R. 19 I.A. 234 is clearly distinguishable from the present. There the Judicial Committee held that the agreement on which the second suit was founded ought to have been put forward in the first suit.

2. Here the two suits present two perfectly distinct grounds of claim. In the first suit, the plaintiff claims by virtue of an alleged adoption. In the second suit, it is a will which Is put forward as giving title to the property. A. person who takes by adoption is obviously in a totally different position from one who takes under a will. We have no copy of the will before us, and it may well be that the one claim is even inconsistent with the other.

3. We must dismiss the appeal with costs.

Same Parties Subrahmaniam Chetti vs Authinarayanan Same Subject Civil

Civil