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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 389

HORWILL
Alluri Bapanna – Appellant
Versus
Inuganti Vengayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. On 26th June, 1923, Yellappu Bapanna obtained part satisfaction of her decree to the extent of Rs. 2,500 and in December of the same year she obtained another sum of Rs. 1,000. Both these amounts were certified. On 3rd August, 1924, Rs. 2,520 were paid to her but the payment was not certified. On 10th January, 1929, the decree was transferred to the present appellant by Ex. I. That document recites that two sums of Rs. 2,500 and 2,520 respectively had been collected towards the decree amount, that the decree holder is entitled to execute for the balance, and that she transferred her right to execute to the appellant. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court held that on a construction of Ex. I the right transferred to the appellant was to execute for such sum as was due after making the deductions mentioned in the deed. In second appeal Wadsworth, J., was of the same opinion and referred to the possibility that the document of transfer and the filing of E.P. No. 231 of 1929 by the appellant might amount to a certification within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 2. Against this judgment of Wadsworth, J., the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferr












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