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

1925 Supreme(Mad) 606

DEVADOSS
Pattannayya – Appellant
Versus
Pattayya Alias Krishnayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Devadoss, J.

1. The only question in this appeal is whether the decree-holders application for execution is barred by limitation. The facts are briefly these: The respondents herein obtained a decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1903 on 28th September, 1903. It is admitted that the application for execution in R.E.P. No. 323 of 1915 on 11th March, 1915, was within time. The Court ordered delivery of the properties to the decree-holders on 21st July, 1915. Third persons objected to the delivery. The objection was removed and item 3 was delivered to them on 27th March, 1916, and the Court passed an order on that day: "The 3rd item was delivered to the petitioners and the petition was recorded." A suit was filed by the obstructors and a temporary injunction was granted against the delivery of item 2. The suit was ultimately dismissed on 18th December, 1916 and consequently the temporary injunction ceased to be in force from that date. The respondents filed an execution application on 3rd September, 1921, and prayed for delivery of item 2 from the 10th defendant. Both the Lower Courts dismissed the application as being barred by time and Jackson, J. held in C.M.S.A. No. 38 of 1923 that 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