Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1909 DIGILAW 19 (MAD)

Kari Chengamna v. Jatti Kristnamnah and Sannayala Peraya

1909-01-21

BENSON, SANKARAN NAIR

body1909
JUDGMENT 1. We are not prepared to differ from the decision in Barber Maran v. Ramana Gounden 20 M.k 461 mainly based upon the proviso to Section 38 of the Indian Contract Act, which undoubtedly supports the conclusion arrived at in that judgment. 2. We accordingly dismiss the second appeal and the revision petition with costs.