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

1951 Supreme(Mad) 16

SATYANARAYANA RAO
Meesala Seethayya – Appellant
Versus
Kalliadi Venkanna – Respondent


Advocates:
B.V. Subramanyam for the Petitioner.
V. Subramanyam for the Respondent.

Judgment.-

This revision petition is against the order in E.P.No.112 of 1948 in S.C.No.38 of 1935 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram. In S.C.No.38 of 1935 the first respondent who is the decree-holder obtained a decree against five persons on the foot of a promissory note, dated 10th October, 1933, execuced by defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The fifth defendant is the son of the third defendant. During the pendency of the suit, defendants 1, 2 and 3 were adjudicated insolvents on 2nd October, 1935, and the Official Receiver was impleaded in the suit as the sixth defendant in I.A.No.70 of 1936, dated 24th February, 1936. The decree actually passed was that defendants 1 to 3 from out of the properties in the hands of the Official Receiver, i.e., the sixth defendant, and defendants 4 and 5 from out of their joint family property should pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.470 with interest. During the pendency of the insolvency, the third defendant’s share in the family properties was sold by the Official Receiver, and was purchased by a stranger. The purchase apparently was of an undivided share in the property. In pursuance of the sale after obtaining the sale deed, the





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