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

1914 Supreme(Mad) 475

Rangammal – Appellant
Versus
Sevugan Chetti, Minor By His – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The District Munsif has not found who is in possession of the property. He only assumes that the petitioners husband was in possession. Without a finding as to who is in possession this matter cannot be disposed of. If the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the property in her own right, she is entitled to get the properties released. from attachment. If she is in possession of the property only as a joint tenant or a tenant-in-common i.e., on her own behalf and on behalf of the judgment-debtor, the decree-holder is entitled to attach and sell the judgment-debtors interest in the property. With reference to the above observations, the Munsif will return a finding after taking evidence on the question of possession. Mr. K.R. Subramania Sastri argues that the matter is not one for interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Where the District Munsif has disposed of a case without deciding a question which under the Code of Civil Procedure he is bound to decide for a proper disposal of the case, this Court ought to interfere under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The finding should be submitted within six weeks and 7 days will be allowed for fi

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