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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 211

WALSH
Adivi Bapiraju – Appellant
Versus
Tummalapalli Sreeramulu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Walsh, J.

1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal which arises in the following way : A decree was obtained in O.S. No. 34 of 1917 against defendant 1 who is the lather of the present appellants. An attempt was made in execution to sell the property in 1920 and an attachment petition was put in but it was dismissed for default of prosecution. In 1924 another application to attach these properties was made and the present appellants put in a claim, petition Ex. 6 on 23rd October 1924 alleging that subsequent to the decree there had been a partition between them and their father and they had been in possession of the properties that fell to their share and these properties could not be attached in execution proceedings for a decree obtained against their father. That claim was allowed the decree-holders pleader reporting no instructions. The respondent who subsequently got an assignment of this decree put in an execution petition, E.P. 616 of 1925, to attach and bring to sale the same properties. The appellants put in a second claim petition repeating their earlier plea and taking a further plea that as no suit had been instituted to set aside the order


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