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

1971 Supreme(Mad) 666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.S. Venkataraman and P.R. Gokulakrishnan, JJ.
Subramaniam Chettiar
Versus
A. Murugappan Chettiar
A.A.O. No. 474 of 1969.
Decided On : 15 October 1971

Advocates:
K. Gopalachari and G. Krishnan, for Appellant.
D. Ramaswami Ayyangar, C. Harikrishnan and R. Venkataraghavan, for Respondents.

Decree holder failed to represent the application again.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 21, rule 2-Application by decree holder certifying adjustment of decree returned for correction without recording satisfaction-Effect of failure by decree holder in not representing the application.

       

Venkataraman, J. — This is an appeal by one A. N. Subramaniam Chettiar, the first defendant in the suit, O.S. No. 132 of 1949, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Pudukkottai, against the order, dated 16th August, 1969 of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing the application, E.A. No. 161 of 1966, which he had filed under Order 21, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, to record full satisfaction of the decree so far as he was concerned. There was one Subramaniam Chettiar. He had three sons, Annamalai, Chidambaram and Kuttayan. The first defendant in the suit (appellant herein) is the son of Annamalai Chettiar. The third defendant in the suit is Adaikalam Chettiar alias Kuttayan Chettiar (third son of Subramaniam Chettiar). The plaintiff in the suit was Deivanai Achi alias Visalakshi Achi, the wife of the said Kuttayan Chettiar. She filed the suit against the three defendants, the first defendant, Chidambaram (her husband’s brother) as the second defendant, and her husband, Kuttayan Chettiar, as the third defendant. Chidambaram, the second defendant died and his son C. T. Subramaniam Chettiar was impleaded as his legal representative and figured as the fourth defendant. The suit was decreed for Rs. 75,748-07 in the trial Court against the family assets of the defendants. Defendants 1 and 4 filed an appeal, A.S. No. 381 of 1951, against the plaintiff and the third defendant. On 21st March, 1956, the High Court in modification of the trial Court’s decree directed the plaintiff to proceed against the assets in the hands of her husband, the third defendant, in the first instance, and only for the balance against the assets in the hands of defendants 1 and 4, her husband’s brothers’ sons. She accordingly realised a sum of Rs. 12,502.93 from her husband, the third defendant. She realised Rs. 33,019.98 from the fourth defendant in full settlement of his 1/3 liability. Alleging that it was not possible to recover anything more from them, she sought to levy execution for the balance of the decretal amount against the present appellant. She filed E.P. No. 16 of 1962 on 17th January, 1962, but it was dismissed on 19th February, 1962. Then on 14th March, 1962 she filed, another execution petition. -It was not numbered; it was returned, but it was not re-presented. It has been marked as Exhibit A-6 in the present proceeding, E.A. No. 161 of 1966. On 15th June, 1962, she filed another execution petition. That again was returned, but was not re-presented. That has been marked as Exhibit A-7 in the present proceeding.

2. Then on 15th January, 1965, she filed E.P. No. 5 of 1965. It has been marked as Exhibit A-12 in the present proceeding. The first defendant filed a counter stating that the decree had been discharged by a family arrangement, dated 12th March, 1962, which is set out in full. The purport of it was that he had filed a suit, O.S. No. 54 of 1949, for partition against his paternal uncle, Kuttayan Chettiar and had obtained a preliminary decree for partition and accounting. He and C. T. Subramaniam Chettiar (fourth defendant in O.S. No. 132 of 1949) had filed a suit, O.S. No. 27 of 1952, in the Subordinate Judge’s Court, for a declaration that whatever’ liability they might have incurred under the decree in the suit, O.S. No. 132 of 1949, to Deivanai Achi, ultimately it would be her husband, Kuttayan Chettiar, who would be liable for it. By the family arrangement all these matters were settled by mutual undertakings. For his part, the appellant was to execute a sale deed of his half share in the house in Arimalam Village (in the then Pudukottai State) in favour of Deivanai Achi in satisfaction of her decree in O.S. No. 132 of 1949. Further certain shares were standing in the name of the appellant’s father and mother. They had to be transferred to the name of Kuttayan Chettiar (Deivanai Achi’s husband). The appellant should report that the decree in O.S. No. 54 of 1949, had been settled out of Court and he should not press





















































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top