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

1997 Supreme(Kar) 417

T.N.VALLINAYAGAM
KRISHNAJI MORESHWAR JOSHI – Appellant
Versus
BHAKATRAM SADASHIV PATIL – Respondent


Advocates:
BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, G.S.VISHVESHVARA

T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-decree-holder is the appellant in this second appeal. His application for drawing final decree in FDP 2/82 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff, Chikodi, was allowed by the trial Court on 31-8-1984. On appeal in R. A. 104/84, the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Chikodi has allowed the appeal on 14-8-1986 and dismissed the application. The question of law that is framed in this second appeal is as follows :"whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies in respect of an application filed under Order 34, Rule 8, C. P. C. particularly when there is no decree for foreclosure ?

( 2 ) THE averments in the application are that in the suit for redemption of possessory mortgage for Rs. 700/-, a preliminary decree has been passed to redeem the mortgaged property which are 29 guntas in RS No. 174/6, apart from 1/8th right to take water. The decree-holders contended that the amount has been paid in due time and therefore he sought for the final decree. The judgment-debtor resisted the application contending that the decree-holders are not entitled to file the present application as they have failed to comply with the terms of the decree. In the additional sta








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