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

1939 Supreme(Mad) 277

PANDRANG ROW
A. R. R. M. Somasundaram Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
P. P. A. R. R. M. Peria Karuppan Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pandrang Row, J.

1. Since judgment was pronounced in this appeal, an application has been made on behalf of respondent 4 by his mother and guardian under Sections 7 and 8, Madras Agriculturists Belief Act, 4 of 1938, for scaling down the debt. The application has been opposed on the preliminary ground that no application of this description lies after a decree has been made. According to this contention, the only application that can be made for amendment of a decree is under Section 19 of the Act which applies only to cases where the decree was made before the commencement of the Act. As there is no other provision in the Act for amendment of decrees, it is contended that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code alone can apply. It is however not necessary to deal with these contentions in this particular case for the simple reason that in this case no decree has been actually drawn up and an application was made to stop the drafting of the decree pending the disposal of this application. In view of the circumstances of this particular case, namely that the suit originally had been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of limitation and there was no decree against th

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