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

1962 Supreme(Mad) 312

VENKATADRI, GANAPATIA PILLAI
Muhammad Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Ganga Naicken alias Gangama Naicken and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P. Sharfuddin, for Petitioners; M. Ranganatha Sastri, for Respondent.

Judgement

GANAPATIA PILLAI, J, :- This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment and decree of this court in L. P. A. No. 7 of 1958.*That appeal, which was disposed of by Rajamannar, C. J., and one of us, was preferred against the judgment and decree of Ramaswami, J., in A. A. A. O. No. 102 of 1957, which, in turn, was the appeal against the order of the District Court, Tiruchirapalli, in A. S. No. 354 of 1956 confirming the order of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in E. P. No. 64 of 1955 in O. S. No. 128 of 1945.

* See AIR 1962 Mad 264.

2. The question related to limitation. The decree directed delivery of possession of certain immovable property and payment of Rs. 135 for past mesne profits and further directed ascertainment of future mesne profits from date of plaint under Or. 20 rule 12 C.P.C. E. P. No. 64 of 1955 was filed by the decree-holder, the applicant before us, for delivery of possession of the property. This execution petition was filed admittedly more than three years after the date of the original decree and also the date of a prior E.P. which was dismissed on 24-2-1947 for non-payment of batta. But, the decree-h







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