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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 411

ALFRED HENRY LIONEL LEACH
Ayyappa Naicker – Appellant
Versus
Kasiperumal Nayakar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This petition raises the question whether a person who has obtained an attachment before judgment is a person whose interests are affected within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, when the property attached has been sold in execution of a decree obtained by another person. On the 30th November, 1932, the petitioner obtained an order for attachment before judgment in respect of certain immovable property belonging to the second and third respondents and on the 3rd July, 1933, a decree was passed in his favour. Some three weeks before the decree was passed the first respondent caused the attached property to be sold in execution of a decree which he had obtained against the second and third respondents. On the 8th July, 1933, the petitioner filed a petition in the Court which had ordered the sale (the Court of the District Munsif of Tuticorin) asking that the sale should be set aside on the ground that there had been material irregularity. The District Munsif held that the petitioner was not a person who came within the section and dismissed the application. The petitioner appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Tutic











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