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

1980 Supreme(Mad) 484

V.BALASUBRAHMANYAN
Perumal – Appellant
Versus
Ramachandra Padayachi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.

1. These two civil revision petitions although heard at an interval of a week or two in between are disposed of by this common judgment, considering that both of them raise an identical point of limitation. Eachisa case where the holder of a money decree purchases a judgment-debtor's property in execution sale. After confirmation of the sale in his favour the decree-holder-purchaser applies to the executing Court for delivery. The application is filed within a period of one year from the date when the sale is made absolute. This is the prescribed period for an application of this kind under Article 134 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. On this application by the decree-holder-purchaser, the Court orders delivery. But, for some reason or other, the purchaser does not succeed in obtaining actual delivery. The delivery warrant is returned unexecuted. In the one case, the judgment-debtor makes himself scarce, and the property is found under lock and key, and the purchaser does not move the Court for an order for breaking open the lock for gaining entry. In the other case an obstructer stands in the way of the delivery warrant being executed. Wh













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