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.

In Re: Ponnambala Mudali

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 22, 1938
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/799527

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
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Ponnambala Mudali

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1938Mad905; (1938)2MLJ529

Excerpt

- stodart, j.1. petitioner bought some property in court-auction.2. the whole of the purchase money paid by him was forfeited under rule 86 of order 21, civil procedure code. he now asks me to revise the order of forfeiture. only the initial deposit of 25per cent, could in any case be forfeited. to that extent the district munsiff's order is wrong. as for the initial deposit the district munsiff certainly had discretion to order its forfeiture since the party had not, along with the balance of the purchase money deposited, the cost of the general stamp to be affixed to the sale certificate. but having regard to the fact that the new rule requiring payment of the cost of the stamp was fairly recent having been in force for only six months and also to the fact that the clerk of the court who issued the chellan should have drawn the petitioner's attention to the new rule and asked him to pay the small sum necessary to defray the cost of the stamp, i think the court need not have ordered forfeiture of the initial deposit and though this is a case in which this court would not ordinarily interfere i think it is right that the district munsiff's order be set aside and that the whole sum including the 25 per cent, initial deposit be returned to the petitioner subject to such deductions as are-prescribed.3. both parties do bear their own costs of this petition.

Full Judgment

Stodart, J.

1. Petitioner bought some property in court-auction.

2. The whole of the purchase money paid by him was forfeited under Rule 86 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code. He now asks me to revise the order of forfeiture. Only the initial deposit of 25per cent, could in any case be forfeited. To that extent the District Munsiff's order is wrong. As for the initial deposit the District Munsiff certainly had discretion to order its forfeiture since the party had not, along with the balance of the purchase money deposited, the cost of the general stamp to be affixed to the sale certificate. But having regard to the fact that the new rule requiring payment of the cost of the stamp was fairly recent having been in force for only six months and also to the fact that the clerk of the Court who issued the Chellan should have drawn the petitioner's attention to the new rule and asked him to pay the small sum necessary to defray the cost of the stamp, I think the Court need not have ordered forfeiture of the initial deposit and though this is a case in which this Court would not ordinarily interfere I think it is right that the District Munsiff's order be set aside and that the whole sum including the 25 per cent, initial deposit be returned to the petitioner subject to such deductions as are-prescribed.

3. Both parties do bear their own costs of this petition.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial