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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 145

VENKATASUBBA RAO
Megraj Iswaradas – Appellant
Versus
The Corporation of Madras – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This appeal raises a point not covered by authority; before dealing with it, we shall first dispose of certain other matters which have been argued.

2. The first question to be decided is this. Section 73, Civil Procedure Code, provides that those decree-holders alone are entitled to rateable distribution who have applied for execution to the Court by which the assets are held. Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Aiyars contention is in effect, that this is a self-contained rule and is not to be read as controlled by or being subject to, the provision embodied in Section 63. To accept this contention would be to defeat and render nugatory the last-mentioned section. Section 63 must be treated as constituting an exception to Section 73 in this respect. Although the decree-holder claiming rateable distribution should ordinarily, as prescribed by Section 73, have applied for execution to the Court by which the assets are held, Section 63, recognizing an exception, lays down when and to what extent this rule may be departed from. Where, as is stated in Section 63, the property is under attachment in execution of decrees* of more Courts than one, if the other conditions










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