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

1959 Supreme(Mad) 16

GANAPATIA PILLAI
P. S. V. R. M. Ramanatha Ayyar . . – Appellant
Versus
M. Pappu Reddiar – Respondent


Advocates:
T. P. Gopalakrishnan, for Appellant.
K. S. Deslkan and K. Raman, for Respondent.

Judgment.-

This appeal is preferred by the defendant petitioner in E.A. No, 84 of 1956 in O.S. No. 98 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. That was an application made by the defendant in the suit for restitution under section 144, Civil Procedure Code.

The facts of the case are: One Muthuswami Reddiar filed O.S. No. 98 of 1949 against the present appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli for recovery of a large sum of money and obtained a decree for about Rs. 10,000 odd and Rs. 1,400 for costs against the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal against that decree to this Court in A.S. No. 121 of 1951. Pending appeal, he applied for stay of execution and this Court ordered the entire decree amount to be deposited into Court as a condition of the stay, and further ordered that the decree amount could be withdrawn by the decree-holder on his furnishing security of immoveable property. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the judgment-debtor, the appellant before me, deposited the entire decree amount into the lower Court he having paid the costs of suit to the decree-holder. But the decree-holder never furnished security as d






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