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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 61

HORACE OWEN COMPTON BEASLEY, KT.
Munnaluri Rama Rao minor by guardian Gangamma – Appellant
Versus
Tadikonda Sreeramamurthi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The preliminary objection as regards the orders in these cases made in the lower Court being appealable must be overruled.

2. One of the orders in question is an order disallowing a plea that the execution petition was barred by limitation and that order having been made, subsequent proceedings were adjourned until a future date. The other is an order allowing the mortgagee from the original decree-holder in the suit to be brought on as legal representative of the deceased widow of the original decree-holder and to continue the execution.

3. A number of cases have been put before us but it is only necessary to refer to three of them. One is Rajah of Ramnad v. Velusami Tevar (1920) 40 M.L.J. 197 L.R. 48 : I.A. 45 a decision of the Privy Council and another is Shiva Narayan Lal v. Narayan Prasad AIR1924Pat683 . The latter case holds the view that an order dismissing a plea of limitation as regards an execution petition in execution proceedings is an appealable decree under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code; and that decision-is directly in point. I think also that the Privy Council decision in Rajah of Ramnad v. Velusami Tevar (1920) 40 M.













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