Back
1925 Supreme(Mad) 454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Muthuveeraswami Nayudu
Versus
V.T.A.L. Annamalai Chettiar
Decided On : 25 August, 1925
The determination of legal representatives and the question of limitation should be made by the Court which passed the decree, and the lower Court should consider objections raised before making orders.
Headnote:
Objections - Legal Representatives and Decree Transfer - The court set aside the order directing the decree to be transferred to another court due to failure to address objections raised regarding the legal representatives and the question of limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The lower Court made an order to transfer the decree to another Court without addressing objections raised by Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 regarding their status as legal representatives and without dealing with the question of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the objections raised should have been considered by the Judge, and the determination of legal representatives and the question of limitation should be made by the Court which passed the decree. The order was set aside and the lower Court was directed to deal with the application according to law.
Issues: Failure to address objections raised, determination of legal representatives, and question of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the determination of legal representatives and the question of limitation should be made by the Court which passed the decree, and the lower Court should have considered the objections raised.
Final Decision: The order directing the decree to be transferred to another Court was set aside, and the lower Court was directed to deal with the application according to law. No order was made as to costs in either case.
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 the Court which passed the decree. See Swaminatha Ayyar v. Vaidyanatha Sastri [1906] 28 Mad.466. Whether the decree was barred by limitation or not is also a question to be determined by the Court which passed the decree. See Rajilagiripathy v. Bhawanisanharan A.I.R. 1924 Mad.673.
4. The order is set aside and the lower Court is directed to deal with the application according to law.
5. No order is necessary in the civil revision petition.
6. We make no order as to costs in either case.
