MADHAVAN NAIR
Subbaraya Goundan – Appellant
Versus
V. V. R. Virappa Chettiar Bank and its partners being Valliappa Chettiar – Respondent
Madhavan Nair, J.
1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are:
(1) Has the judgment-debtor who has been adjudicated an insolvent right to prefer an appeal against an order dismissing an application put in by him under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, in the course of the execution of the decree passed against him? and
(2) If such an appeal is incompetent in its inception can it be continued if the Official Receiver consents to continue it?
2. This reference has been occasioned on account of the conflict between the decisions in Kondapalli Tatireddi v. Ramachandra Rao (1921) 13 L.W. 616 and Palaniandi Chettiar v. Kalyanarama Aiyar (1926) 97 I.C. 486. In Kondapalli Tatireddi v. Ramachandra Rao (1921) 13 L.W. 616 it was held that the insolvency of a judgment-debtor does not render it incompetent for him to continue the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 72 by way of an appeal. In Palaniandi Chettiar v. Kalyanarama Aiyar (1926) 97 I.C. 486 it was held that a party to a suit after adjudication as an insolvent cannot be deemed to be a person aggrieved by it and has therefore no right to institute an appeal against the decree in the suit.
3. The facts of the case under refere
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.