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.

Jayanti Kistappa Vs. Jayanti Chinnapiya

Jayanti Kistappa vs Jayanti Chinnapiya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 24, 1911
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/809704

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.

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Order XXIV, Rule 4(2) - Deposit of amount in Court--Costs, award of--Finding as to which party was most to blame necessary--Demand before suit. - - 1. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for a debt, averring in his plaint that the defendant had failed to pay in spite...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jayanti Kistappa

Respondent

Jayanti Chinnapiya

Legal References

Reported In
13Ind.Cas.188

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxiv, rule 4(2) - deposit of amount in court--costs, award of--finding as to which party was most to blame necessary--demand before suit. - - 1. in this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for a debt, averring in his plaint that the defendant had failed to pay in spite of repeated demands. the district munsif gave the plaintiff his costs, and the subordinate judge on appeal reversed this part of the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff should either have made a demand or given sufficient reasons for his failure to do so.wallis, j.1. in this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for a debt, averring in his plaint that the defendant had failed to pay in spite of repeated demands. he also obtained an order for attachment before judgment. before the attachment issued, the defendant paid the amount sued for into court and the defendant drew it out. order xxiv, rule 4(2) requires that when a defendant pays money into court and the plaintiff accepts it in full satisfaction, the plaintiff shall present to the court a statement to that effect, and such statement shall be filed and the court shall pass judgment accordingly, and in directing by whom the costs of each party are to be paid the court shall consider which of the parties is most to blame for the litigation. the district munsif gave the plaintiff his costs, and the subordinate judge on appeal reversed this part of the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff should either have made a demand or given sufficient reasons for his failure to do so. the plaintiff in his plaint did allege previous demands which the defendant apparently denied in his written statement.2. the subordinate judge should have called for a finding on the point before disposing of the case. the decree of the lower appellate, court must be set aside and the case remanded for disposal according to law. costs will abide the result.

Full Judgment

Wallis, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for a debt, averring in his plaint that the defendant had failed to pay in spite of repeated demands. He also obtained an order for attachment before judgment. Before the attachment issued, the defendant paid the amount sued for into Court and the defendant drew it out. Order XXIV, Rule 4(2) requires that when a defendant pays money into Court and the plaintiff accepts it in full satisfaction, the plaintiff shall present to the Court a statement to that effect, and such statement shall be filed and the Court shall pass judgment accordingly, and in directing by whom the costs of each party are to be paid the Court shall consider which of the parties is most to blame for the litigation. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff his costs, and the Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed this part of the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff should either have made a demand or given sufficient reasons for his failure to do so. The plaintiff in his plaint did allege previous demands which the defendant apparently denied in his written statement.

2. The Subordinate Judge should have called for a finding on the point before disposing of the case. The decree of the lower Appellate, Court must be set aside and the case remanded for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial