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

1970 Supreme(Mad) 26

P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN, K.VEERASWAMI
M. S. Venkataraman – Appellant
Versus
V. Nataraja Iyer – Respondent


Advocates:
N. Srivatsamani and K.V. Dorairaj, for Appellants.
S.V. Jayaraman and V. Kannan, for Respondent.

Veeraswami, C.J.- These appeals under the Letters Patent raise a question of limitation. The final decree in the suit for partition was made on 25th February, 1957, and it was amended by a further order dated 25th July, 1958. Under clause (3) of the final decree the appellants were entitled to a moiety of the sale proceeds of plaint schedule items 5 and 6 which were in deposit in Court. They were similarly declared by the final decree to be entitled to a moiety of the sale proceeds of item 8 covered by clause (4) of the final decree. This amount was also in Court deposit. In October, 1963 the appellants took out an execution petition for payment out of a sum of Rs. 4,639-6-0 out of the moneys lying in deposit. This sum had been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first defendant towards mesne profits from January, 1943 to November, 1951. The question was whether this application was in time. The executing Court decided the question in favour of the appellants, but, Ismail, J., on appeal, reversed the order and found that the application was out of time. This was upon the view that the appellants’ earlier application, I.A. No. 426 of 1960, which was ordered on 14th N






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