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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 161

BEASLEY, GENTLE
Seth Raghunath Dass Harakchand – Appellant
Versus
Seth Purushotham Dass – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the refusal of Mockett, J., to accede to an application by the appellant for leave to be brought on the record as a party plaintiff in C.S. No. 114 of 1926. The application is made pursuant to the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 10 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The claim in the suit is upon a judgment and decree obtained in the High Court of Hyderabad against the defendant, and the grounds of this application are that the appellant is the assignee of the plaintiffs rights against the defendant in the suit which it is alleged he obtained, not from the plaintiff but from the plaintiffs assignee, and that his position has been so recognised by the Courts in Hyderabad. It is necessary to consider the history of the litigation in order to appreciate the position correctly and, in so doing we will assume the accuracy of the facts which have been, placed before us. The original debt was incurred in 1877 which incidentally was before the defendant was born. On December 19, 1925, the plaintiff obtained a decree in the Courts in Hyderabad against the defendant and on July 18, 1926, the present suit was filed, the claim being based upon the foreign judgm





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