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

1941 Supreme(Mad) 463

KUNHI RAMAN
Dupagunta Subramaniam – Appellant
Versus
Govinda Petar Satyanadham – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Kunhi Raman, J.

1. An interesting question of law under Section 60, Civil Procedure Code arises for determination in this civil revision petition. Since the respondent was not represented by advocate, Mr. Krishna Rao was asked to assist the Court by appearing as amicus curicae and he has very kindly placed before the Court all the authorities relevant to the point involved in the case.:

2. The question which the Court below had to decide was, whether an arrangement made by an employee of the Bezwada Municipality, who was drawing a salary of Rs. 100 a month, that his creditor who had obtained a decree against him may take Rs. 15 per month out of his salary in satisfaction of the decree, is. enforceable in law. The agreement between the parties was reduced to writing and Ex. A is the document that was relied on in the Court below. It professes to be a salary assignment deed which prima facie is opposed to the provisions of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act which prohibits assignment of salary or pension. In the body of the document, as already indicated, the creditor was given the power of collecting Rs. 15 a month out of the debtors salary. To enforce this agreement,

















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