Pitchayya Vs. Narasayya and anr.

Pitchayya vs Narasayya and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 09, 1883

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/787828

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/787828
Court: Chennai
Judge: Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Hutchins, J.
Decided On: Nov 09, 1883
Subject: Contract

Case Summary

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

Contract Act, Section 265 - Partners--Suit to recover share of profits realised. -

Key legal issue: Contract

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pitchayya

Respondent

Narasayya and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: (1883)ILR7Mad246

Excerpt

contract act, section 265 - partners--suit to recover share of profits realised. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. this is not a claim to have a partnership wound up, nor is it a suit praying the court to order payment of debts and to distribute the surplus profits of a partnership. it is a suit to require the defendant to account for and pay over a portion of the sum realised on a joint speculation, or to provide for the plaintiff's share out of another portion of the fund which has been realised under the joint order of the parties.2. the court of first instance had, in our judgment, jurisdiction.3. the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. This is not a claim to have a partnership wound up, nor is it a suit praying the Court to order payment of debts and to distribute the surplus profits of a partnership. It is a suit to require the defendant to account for and pay over a portion of the sum realised on a joint speculation, or to provide for the plaintiff's share out of another portion of the fund which has been realised under the joint order of the parties.

2. The Court of First Instance had, in our judgment, jurisdiction.

3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Pitchayya vs Narasayya and anr. Same Subject Contract Same Judge Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Hutchins, J.

Contract