RODRIGUES Vs. RODRIGUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, Mr. T.M. Cheriyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two grounds of attack as against the judgment of the learned Principal Munsiff of Quilon in S. C. S. No. 7 of 1962. Unfortunately, nobody appears for the respondent. But any how Mr. T. M. Cheriyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has quite fairly placed before me all aspects bearing upon the matter.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the action for recovery of subscriptions from the defendant on the ground that the defendant was conducting a chitty and that amounts are due to the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant denied having conducted any chitty at all and, therefore, disputed his liability to answer the claim of the plaintiff. Two questions arise for consideration, namely, as to whether the plaintiff was a subscriber to a chitty started by the defendant and the amount, if any due to the plaintiff and secondly, as to whether the chitty being an unregistered chitty the plaintiff can take any action for recovery of the amounts in view of the provision contained particularly in the proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.7 of the Travancore Chitties Act, Act 26 of 1120.