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

1925 Supreme(Mad) 365

Sree Rajah Vadrevu Viswasundara – Appellant
Versus
Vannam Paidigadu, By Mother And – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The only point involved in this appeal is whether Article 180 is applicable to an application by the purchaser of immoveable property at a sale in execution of a decree for delivery of possession, or Art 181.

2. The appellant purchased property in execution of a decree and the sale was confirmed on 29th June, 1918. The application out of which the present appeal arises was made on 30th July, 1921. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge have held that the appellants application is barred by limitation under Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is contended by Mr. Kameswara Rao before us that an application for execution was made in June, 1920, and the District Munsif ordered that the property sold should be delivered to the purchaser and that this order was not carried out by the Court and therefore should be considered to be in force. He urges that when a Court passes an order for delivery it is the duty of the Court to see that the delivery takes place, and he relies upon the wording of Order 21, Rule 95, and contends that the words " the Court shall, on the application of the purchaser, order delivery to be made by putting such purchaser or any perso




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