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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 80

CURGENVEN
Vemasami Veeraghavulu – Appellant
Versus
Thiruvendipuram Chengalamma Garu – Respondent


ORDER

Curgenven, J.

1. The petitioners brought two separate mortgage suits against the same mortgagor and these proceeded to the passing of final decrees. Against the preliminary decrees appeals were preferred to this Court and were in due course dismissed, but in the decrees dismissing them the time for redemption of the mortgaged property was not extended. Meanwhile on the footing of the original final decrees applications were made for sale of the mortgaged properties and were ordered accordingly. Soon after these applications were filed it appears that the attention of this Court was drawn by communication from the judgment-debtors to the fact that no time for redemption had been fixed in the appellate decrees and without notice to the decree-holders orders were thereupon passed extending the time in each case to six months from the date of the appellate decrees, which would come to 19th October 1928. The effect of these orders was of course that fresh final decrees would have had to be passed after the expiry of this period. It seems that no notice was given to the decree-holders that this extension of time had been made and in the applications for sale they filed copies of the




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