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

1943 Supreme(Mad) 158

KING
Gokarakonda Audinarayudu – Appellant
Versus
Surapureddi Mangamma – Respondent


JUDGMENT

King, J.

1. The appellant here is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 27 of 1937 and he has attached certain property which he alleged to be the property of his judgment-debtors, defendants 1 and 2. The fourth defendant intervened with a claim petition in which it was asserted that the first and second defendants had contracted to sell the property to her and had duly put her in possession. There was thus, what was in effect, a plea under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. The claim was dismissed in the first instance by the District Munsiff. There was then an appeal which was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry. He considered that the District Munsiff had dealt with the matter in too summary a fashion, as if it were merely a claim petition. He held that on the contrary, Section 47 applied and that the enquiry should be much more exhaustive. He, accordingly, remanded the suit to the District Munsiff for that particular kind of inquiry. No appeal was filed against the order of remand. After remand the learned District Munsiff again dismissed the claim. But, on appeal, the learned District Judge of East Godavari has allowed it. The question which alone



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