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

1943 Supreme(Mad) 342

LEACH
Siva Subramania Chettiar, minor by natural father and guardian, Veerappa Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Adaikkalam Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Leach, C.J.

1. The appellant, who is a minor, is the holder of a decree for mesne profits which was passed in favour of his adoptive father on 14th November 1923 in a suit for partition. By his next friend he presented various petitions for execution. The last petition was dismissed for default on 4th April 1941. On 18th April 1941 his next friend, who at that time was his natural father, his adoptive father being dead, applied for a review of the order of dismissal. The District Judge granted the application, not as one falling within Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C, but because he felt that the dismissal of the execution application would work great hardship, as it was too late to file a fresh one, and consequently it was, according to him, a case in which the Court should invoke the inherent powers recognized by Section 151. There were three judgment-debtors. Two of them filed C. M. A. No. 569 of 1942 and the third, C. M. A. No. 98 of 1943. These appeals were heard by Horwill J. who allowed them. The present appeals are from the judgment of Horwill J., under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. When the application for execution was called on 4th April 1941, neither the appell


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