Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vasudevan and ors. Vs. Sankaran and ors.

Vasudevan and ors. vs Sankaran and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 27, 1897
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/782083

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Malabar law - Decree against karnavan binding on tarwad. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vasudevan and ors.

Respondent

Sankaran and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
(1897)ILR20Mad129

Excerpt

malabar law - decree against karnavan binding on tarwad. - shephard and subramania ayyar, jj.1. it is said on the appellants behalf that there was a prior judgment in their favour, of which they might have availed themselves if they had known that the view of the law now taken would be maintained. but this prior judgment was not pleaded, though it was open to the appellants to put it forward.2. on the facts as found by the district judge, we must hold that he was right in dismissing the suit, and therefore the appeal is dismissed, but without costs.

Full Judgment

Shephard and Subramania Ayyar, JJ.

1. It is said on the appellants behalf that there was a prior judgment in their favour, of which they might have availed themselves if they had known that the view of the law now taken would be maintained. But this prior judgment was not pleaded, though it was open to the appellants to put it forward.

2. On the facts as found by the District Judge, we must hold that he was right in dismissing the suit, and therefore the appeal is dismissed, but without costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial