MARIYAYEE AMMAL Vs. PONNUSAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition relates to Small Cause Suit No. 1912 of 1926 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madura. That suit was tried by the Subordinate Judge with another Small Cause suit between the same parties, No. 1530 of 1926. The plaintiff in each case was the brother of the defendant, a Hindu widow, who, it appears, was engaged in litigation with the representatives of a deceased co- widow about the property of her late husband. In Small Cause Suit No. 1530 of 1926, the plaintiff sued for the value of certain moveables, which his sister, the defendant, had recovered in a suit against her co-widow's representatives on the strength of an alleged agreement, under which according to him, as he had given security for her in that suit, he was entitled to have possession of the moveable property which she recovered or its value, if she recovered its value in money. In Small Cause Suit No. 1912 of 1926, he sued for arrears of salary claimed by him under a clause of the same agreement for his services to the defendant in connection with that suit and with other litigation and other matters and interest on the arrears of salary. The two suits were tried together, and the learned judge eventually, after a number of hearings and a great many more adjournments, disposed of them by one judgment. In that judgment he set out the pleadings at very considerable length. He then set out eight points for determination, which in the judgment he called "issues". But, though the trial had occupied him a long time, about fifty documents had been exhibited and eleven witnesses had been examined, he disposed of the whole matter in the briefest: possible way. He said nothing more than this in the effective part of his judgment: I find issues 1, 2 and 6 in the affirmative and issues 3 to 5 and 7 in the negative and on issue 8, 1 find that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 6 per cent per annum only by way of damages under the Interest Act.

(2.) That certainly in the circumstances appears to be a rather surprising judgment as the result of so much judicial labour as has been devoted to the trial of these two suits.

(3.) Revision Petitions against the decrees made by the learned Judge in accordance with those findings in favour of the plaintiff in both suits were preferred to this Court by the defendant. Civil Revision Petition No. 1.43 of 1928, against the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 1530 has already been dismissed, and we have nothing to do with that now. The present Civil Revision Petition. against the decree in the other suit, i.e., the suit for the arrears, of salary, came on first before Wallace, J. It was urged by the defendant in this petition that the judgment recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge was not in proper compliance with the provisions of law on the subject. Wallace, J., finding that different views have been taken by different Judges of this Court on different occasions as to what must be contained in the judgment in a Small Cause suit, referred the petition to a Bench, expressing the opinion that it was desirable to have the ruling of a Bench on the question whether, when points of law arise for decision in a Small Cause suit, the Judge is bound to give some reasons for his decisions. That is how the matter has come before us.