Sankaran Vs. Parvathi and ors.

Sankaran vs Parvathi and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 15, 1895

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784495

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/784495
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Parker, J.
Decided On: Oct 15, 1895
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code, Section 13, Explanation 2, Section 43 - Ground of defence not raised in previous suit--Belief not asked for in previous suit-Circumstances giving right to such relief not known at date of previous suit. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sankaran

Respondent

Parvathi and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Ambu v. Ketlilamma I.L.R.
Reported In: (1896)ILR19Mad145

Excerpt

civil procedure code, section 13, explanation 2, section 43 - ground of defence not raised in previous suit--belief not asked for in previous suit-circumstances giving right to such relief not known at date of previous suit. - .....therefore that a suit for a declaration would not lie. he did not choose to do this, and therefore cannot fall back upon the fact that his possession dates from march 1884 as a ground of defence to the present action (section 13, code of civil procedure, explanation 2). independently of this, however, it is found as a fact that plaintiffs did not actually know that first defendant had obtained possession. we cannot infer that they had constructive knowledge, because their karnavan had notice of the application for execution in december 1883. the plaintiffs are not acting with their karnavan, whose conduct has necessitated their acting independently of him, and therefore they are not affected by his knowledge if such knowledge be proved. we do not think the decision in kunhiamma v. kunhunni i.l.r. 16 mad. 140 expresses dissent from the ground on which ambu v. ketlilamma i.l.r. 14 mad. 23 was decided i.e. that section 43 only applies to cases in which the plaintiff had knowledge of the claim he was entitled to make; the only dissent expressed was to the view of the late sir t. muttusami ayyar, j., that section 283, code of civil procedure, gives a special right to sue in opposition to the provisions of section 42 of the specific relief act.2. the only other ground taken is as to mesne profits, and it is said that not more than three years' mesne profits could have been awarded. we do not think, however, that first defendant can really be regarded as a trespasser. he stood in the shoes of echu menon and was entitled to possession until redeemed. the plaint has deducted the arrears of michavaram from the kanom amount due, and thus the calculation has proceeded on the right basis, though the relief has been erroneously described as mesne profits. the second appeal therefore fails and the memorandum of objections is not pressed. the second appeal and memorandum of objections are dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. It was open to the first defendant to plead in Original Suit No. 37 of 1884 that he was already in possession and therefore that a suit for a declaration would not lie. He did not choose to do this, and therefore cannot fall back upon the fact that his possession dates from March 1884 as a ground of defence to the present action (Section 13, Code of Civil Procedure, Explanation 2). Independently of this, however, it is found as a fact that plaintiffs did not actually know that first defendant had obtained possession. We cannot infer that they had constructive knowledge, because their karnavan had notice of the application for execution in December 1883. The plaintiffs are not acting with their karnavan, whose conduct has necessitated their acting independently of him, and therefore they are not affected by his knowledge if such knowledge be proved. We do not think the decision in Kunhiamma v. Kunhunni I.L.R. 16 Mad. 140 expresses dissent from the ground on which Ambu v. Ketlilamma I.L.R. 14 Mad. 23 was decided i.e. that Section 43 only applies to cases in which the plaintiff had knowledge of the claim he was entitled to make; the only dissent expressed was to the view of the late Sir T. Muttusami Ayyar, J., that Section 283, Code of Civil Procedure, gives a special right to sue in opposition to the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

2. The only other ground taken is as to mesne profits, and it is said that not more than three years' mesne profits could have been awarded. We do not think, however, that first defendant can really be regarded as a trespasser. He stood in the shoes of Echu Menon and was entitled to possession until redeemed. The plaint has deducted the arrears of michavaram from the kanom amount due, and thus the calculation has proceeded on the right basis, though the relief has been erroneously described as mesne profits. The second appeal therefore fails and the memorandum of objections is not pressed. The second appeal and memorandum of objections are dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Sankaran vs Parvathi and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Parker, J.

Civil