SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1916 Supreme(SC) 48

LORD BUCKMASTER, LORD ATKINSON, SIR JOHN EDGE
MAHARAJAH OF BOBBILI – Appellant
Versus
NARASARAJU PEDA SRINHULU – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitor for appellant: Douglas Grant.

Judgement

Appeal from a decree of the High Court (May 2, 1912) affirming an order of the District Judge of Vizagapatam.

The appellant on April 5, 1904, obtained a money decree against the respondents in the Court of the District Judge. In September, 1904, the decree was sent upon his petition and under s. 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, to the Court of a Munsif for execution against property within the jurisdiction of that Court; it remained unexecuted in that Court until August, 1910. In January, 1908, the appellant petitioned the District Court for execution of the decree and that notice under s. 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, might be issued to the respondents, but this petition was not proceeded with. On April 27, 1910, he made the present application to the District Judge for execution of the decree by the sale of property which had been attached by the Court of the Munsif.

The District Judge held that the application of January, 1908, was not made to the " proper Court " within the Limitation Act, 1908, Sched. I, art. 182 (5.), and that the three years period of limitation provided by that Article consequently ran from the date of the decree and that the














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top