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

1952 Supreme(Mad) 332

GOVINDA MENON, BASHEER AHMED SAYEED
Kalyani Achi – Appellant
Versus
K. N. S. P. R. M. Ramanatham Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar for Appellant.
A. Sundaram Aiyar for Respondents.

Govinda Menon, J.-

These appeals arise out of the order of the, Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in E.P. No. 100 of 1949 in O.S. No. 53 of 1949, dated 16th July, 1952. It is a matter of some doubt whether the order in question is one that comes directly under the provisions of section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code; but in any event there is the Civil Revision Petition filed alternatively and if we are convinced that the learned Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him by law, then we have to set it aside.

In execution of the decree in O. S. No. 53 of 1949 in the Sub-Court, Sivaganga, three items of properties were attached before judgment and they were proclaimed for sale to be held on 17th June, 1952. The order of the Court to the officer conducting the sale was to the effect that he should sell in auction sufficient portions of the properties attached before judgment on 17th June, 1952, and that he should certify the manner in which the auction was held and if none was held, the reason for the same and return the warrant on or before the 23rd June, 1952. The sale warrant is therefore clear that the sale was to be held on 17th June, 1952, and the warrant has to be retur








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