High Courts

V.S. Munuswami Mudaliar vs Kandaswami Pillai

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 September 1934 · Citation: AIR 1935 Mad 5 : (1934) 40 LW 805

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 362 words
1.

We think that the lower Court was right in deciding that the plaintiff was personally liable for the refund of the costs, and that they could be

recovered in restitution by his arrest or attachment of his property, whatever remedy lay against the assets of the institution. Where a plaintiff who

sues as a trustee incurs a liability to costs, the rule undoubtedly is that it is in the first instance a personal liability unless he obtains an order from the

Court that the costs are to come out of the estate. The position, particularly as it affects a trustee in bankruptcy under the English law has been

discussed by one of us in Panchakshari v. Venkataratnam 1934 Mad. 430. That was the case of a defendant against whom an order for costs had

been made, but it can make no difference to the principle to be applied : See also Harikishan Das v. Parshotamnand Gir 1934 All. 793. In the

present case the original order was that the respondent (defendant 5) should pay appellant (plaintiff) his costs, not that they should be paid to the

credit of the institution of which he was trustee; and it is for the appellant so far as the respondent is concerned, to pay them back. This is the

clearer because the order of the appellate Court disallowing plaintiff his costs was, we find, based upon his own failure to support his case by going

into the witness-box.

2.

It is further argued that no express order exists, either by the appellate Court, or by the lower Court in ordering restitution, for the respondent of

the costs. The contention, as regards the appellate Court, is based on a form of decree (see Civil Rules of Practice No. 92 and Forms 29 and 30)

which we do not think is in force in this Court. As regards the form of the lower Court''s order we think that in ordering attachment of the

appellant''s moveables, after finding him personally liable, it has sufficiently complied with the requirements of the case.

3.

We dismiss the appeal with costs for payment of which the appellant will be personally liable.