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

1914 Supreme(Mad) 430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
The Chartered Bank Of India,
Versus
K.P. Velliappa Chetty And Ors.
Decided On : 26 October, 1914

Family property of Nattukottai Chetties should be treated as trade assets, and no distinction should be made between the family property and the trade assets.

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure - Rule 50 - Family Property and Trade Assets - The court held that the family property of Nattukottai Chetties should be treated as trade assets, and no distinction should be made between the family property and the trade assets.

Fact of the Case:

The Subordinate Judge's order was not supported as Rule 50 of the Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure had no application, and the family property in question was considered as trade assets.

Finding of the Court:

The Subordinate Judge's order was set aside, and the petition in the execution application was dismissed with costs in both the Lower Court and the current court, with the attachment order being revived. The execution proceedings were transferred to the file of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga.

Issues: Interpretation of Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, treatment of family property as trade assets, and the application of previous rulings in similar cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court followed the rulings in Chidambaram Chetty v. Ramasami Chetty and held that the family property of Nattukottai Chetties should be treated as trade assets, with no distinction between the two.

Final Decision: The Subordinate Judge's order was set aside, and the petition in the execution application was dismissed with costs in both the Lower Court and the current court, with the attachment order being revived. The execution proceedings were transferred to the file of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga.

JUDGMENT

1. The Subordinate Judges order cannot be supported. Rule 50 of the Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure relied on by the Subordinate Judge has no application as no property of the minor defendants not involved in the family trade was sought to be attached or sold.

2. As regards the contention (accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge) that the family property in Pullateen must be proved to be the assets of the Rangoon Firm which is not different from the family firm known as K. P. Firm, it being only a branch of the K. P. Firm), we follow the rulings in Chidambaram Chetty v. Ramasami Chetty (1914) 27 M.L.J. 631. and that "in the case of Nattukottai Chetties, their family property should be treated as trade assets" and that no distinction should be made between the family property and the trade assets.

3. The Subordinate Judges order is set aside and the Petition No. 892 of 1913 in Execution Application No. 95 of 1913 will stand dismissed with costs in this and in the Lower Court, the attachment order being revived.

4. The execution proceedings are transferred to the file of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top