Periakaruppan Vs. Palaniappa

Periakaruppan vs Palaniappa

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 13, 1902

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/781990

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/781990
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Nov 13, 1902
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Periakaruppan

Respondent

Palaniappa

Legal References

Cases Referred: Velu Pillai v. Ghose Mahomed I.L.R.
Reported In: (1903)13MLJ210

Excerpt

- subrahmania aiyar, j.1. i see no reason for reducing the amount awarded as damages. nor, in my opinion, is there any reason to disturbing the order as to costs made in the courts below in the due exercise of the discretion vested in them by law. i would dismiss the second appeal with costs.davies, j.2. i agree that there is no reason for reducing the damages awarded to the plaintiff. i am, however, unable to support the order of the courts below granting the plaintiff his costs on the whole amount of his claim instead of only on the amount decreed him in as much as it is opposed to the uniform practice of the courts in this presidency, which is to grant costs only on the amount decreed. velu pillai v. ghose mahomed i.l.r. 17 m. 293. under section 578 of the code of civil procedure, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Subrahmania Aiyar, J.

1. I see no reason for reducing the amount awarded as damages. Nor, in my opinion, is there any reason to disturbing the order as to costs made in the courts below in the due exercise of the discretion vested in them by law. I would dismiss the second appeal with costs.

Davies, J.

2. I agree that there is no reason for reducing the damages awarded to the plaintiff. I am, however, unable to support the order of the courts below granting the plaintiff his costs on the whole amount of his claim instead of only on the amount decreed him in as much as it is opposed to the uniform practice of the courts in this Presidency, which is to grant costs only on the amount decreed. Velu Pillai v. Ghose Mahomed I.L.R. 17 M. 293. Under Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Periakaruppan vs Palaniappa Same Subject Civil

Civil