KARI CHENGAMNA Vs. JATTI KRISTNAMNAH AND SANNAYALA PERAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are not prepared to differ from the decision in Barber Maran V/s. Ramana Gounden 20 M. 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.