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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 155

KING
Allamsetti Venkatappadu – Appellant
Versus
Manda Appalaswami – Respondent


JUDGMENT

King, J.

1. I am unable to see how Somasundaram v. Kondayya (1926) 49 M.L.J. 401 can be distinguished. It is clear that the learned Judges in that case held that the decision to confirm a sale was res judicata against a judgment-debtor who could have raised a plea, but did not, that the land was inalienable. If the decision confirming a sale constitutes the adjudication which is binding it is clearly equally binding whatever be the nature of the subsequent proceedings in which the judgment-debtor attempts to have the sale set aside. Sitting singly I am bound to follow Somasundaram v. Kondayya (1926) 49 M.L.J. 401. I must therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of remand and dismiss respondents application with costs throughout.

2. Leave refused.

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