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

1925 Supreme(Mad) 454

Muthuveeraswami Nayudu – Appellant
Versus
V. T. A. L. Annamalai Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The lower Court, without dealing with the objections raised has made an order directing the decree, to be transferred to another Court. The application was to bring on record the legal representatives of certain deceased parties and to transmit the decree to another Court for execution. Notice was not served on all the persons on whom it should have been served. Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 raised the objection that they were not the legal representatives of Defendants Nos. 1 and 7. The learned Judge observed : " In the natural course they will be the legal representatives of Defendants Nos. 1 and 7." In this he is not correct. If the first defendant had left a widow for instance, Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 would not be his legal representatives in respect of his personal property. The learned Judge apparently did not bring to bear his mind upon the question, as he left it to be decided by the Court to which he directed it to be transferred.

2. Another plea put forward raised a question of limitation. Even this the Judge did not deal with.

3. In our opinion the objections must have been considered by the Judge. The question as to who are the legal representatives must be decided by



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