Mallikarjuna Vs. Pullaya and ors.

Mallikarjuna vs Pullaya and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 23, 1892

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/793198

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/793198
Court: Chennai
Judge: Muttusami Ayyar and ;Parker, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 23, 1892
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code - Act XIV of 1882, Section 53--Amendment of plaint--Substitution of legal representative for deceased defendant. -

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mallikarjuna

Respondent

Pullaya and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Weldon v. Neal L.R.
Reported In: (1893)ILR16Mad319

Excerpt

civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 53--amendment of plaint--substitution of legal representative for deceased defendant. - 1. it does not appear that leave to amend was asked for in the court of first instance before decree. we do not think that an amendment ought to be allowed on appeal, if by so doing the defendant is likely to be precluded from pleading limitation. weldon v. neal l.r. 19 q.b.d. 394.2. upon the facts stated, therefore, we are of opinion that the amendment asked for should be refused and the plaintiff left to his remedy by a regular suit.

Full Judgment

1. It does not appear that leave to amend was asked for in the Court of First Instance before decree. We do not think that an amendment ought to be allowed on appeal, if by so doing the defendant is likely to be precluded from pleading limitation. Weldon v. Neal L.R. 19 Q.B.D. 394.

2. Upon the facts stated, therefore, we are of opinion that the amendment asked for should be refused and the plaintiff left to his remedy by a regular suit.

Same Parties Mallikarjuna vs Pullaya and ors. Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Muttusami Ayyar and ;Parker, JJ.

Tenancy Be all