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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 109

VENKATASUBBA RAO
Bava C. Vaithilinga Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
The Board of Control, Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthanam Tiruvarur – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the provisions in a scheme decree are executable. I have repeatedly held that they are not, but as in two cases decided by Ramesam, J., and my learned brother a different view has been expressed, I have considered the matter carefully and anxiously in the light of the long and learned arguments which have been addressed to us. The difficulty in my opinion, arises from the different view-points as regards the meaning and scope of what is generally termed a scheme suit. As I observed in Ranganatha Thathachariar v. Krishnaswami Thathachariari decided by Old field, J., and myself, what the plaintiff in a scheme suit prays for is a scheme and when the decree frames a scheme, there remains nothing further to obtain by way of execution. I distinguish there the other classes of suits from scheme suits in this respect. In a money suit, for example, the successful plaintiff obtains a decree for money, that is to say, a decree directing the opposite party to pay him the money; but in a scheme suit the decree that is passed, is not that a scheme shall hereafter be settled, but the decree itself embodies the scheme. Le












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