Pakuru Dasu Vs. Bheemudu

Pakuru Dasu vs Bheemudu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 01, 1902

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/780916

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/780916
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Sep 01, 1902
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

- - They failed to do so, and the contract entered into between them that defendant should sell arrack was illegal, and the plaintiff therefore cannot sue on it.

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pakuru Dasu

Respondent

Bheemudu

Legal References

Reported In: (1903)13MLJ133

Excerpt

- - they failed to do so, and the contract entered into between them that defendant should sell arrack was illegal, and the plaintiff therefore cannot sue on it.1. section 22 of the abkari act 1 of 1886 imposes a duty on the lessee or assignee, that is, on the defendant, not the plaintiff in this case; but clause 21 of the plaintiff's license which is issued under section 24, clause (e) of the act, imposes the duty on the plaintiff also as grantee of government to obtain the collector's license for his lessee, the defendant.2. thus there was a legal duty on the part of both the plaintiff and the defendant to obtain the collector's permission to the sub-letting. they failed to do so, and the contract entered into between them that defendant should sell arrack was illegal, and the plaintiff therefore cannot sue on it.3. we dismiss the second appeal with costs.

Full Judgment

1. Section 22 of the Abkari Act 1 of 1886 imposes a duty on the lessee or assignee, that is, on the defendant, not the plaintiff in this case; but Clause 21 of the plaintiff's license which is issued under Section 24, Clause (e) of the Act, imposes the duty on the plaintiff also as grantee of Government to obtain the Collector's license for his lessee, the defendant.

2. Thus there was a legal duty on the part of both the plaintiff and the defendant to obtain the Collector's permission to the sub-letting. They failed to do so, and the contract entered into between them that defendant should sell arrack was illegal, and the plaintiff therefore cannot sue on it.

3. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.

Same Parties Pakuru Dasu vs Bheemudu Same Subject Property

Property