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

1925 Supreme(Mad) 649

CURGENVEN
Meenakshisundaram Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Chandrakasa Naicker – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Curgenvan, J.

1. The plaintiff, who is now the petitioner, sued three persons in the following circumstances. In a previous suit a decree had been obtained against the undivided brother of the 2nd and 3rd defendants and in execution of that decree a house supposed to belong to the judgment-debtor was purchased by the 1st defendant. The latter sold this house to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,500 but the plaintiff was obstructed from obtaining possession by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, claiming each 1/3 share. He therefore sued the three defendants to obtain delivery of the house together with mesne profits and in the alternative, if delivery were not decreed, to recover the purchase money from the 1st defendant. When the suit came on for trial, the 2nd and 3rd defendants were ex parte and the plaintiff compromised with the 1st defendant, with the result that a decree was passed against all the defendants for possession and for a sum of Rs. 405 as mesne profits, this part of the decree being executable first against the 2nd and 3rd defendants and only on a failure to recover from them against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant was also to pay off the amount of a mortgage decree on






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