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

1924 Supreme(Mad) 87

PHILLIPS
Kalyani Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Thiruvenkatasami Iyengar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Phillips, J.

1. Objection is taken by appellants to the execution of a decree of the Privy Council. It is first contended that, as three of the respondents were dead when the appeal was heard and judgment was pronounced, the decree against them is a nullity. Section 23 of William IV, Ch. 41, however, cures the defect in the judgment for it enacts that the order shall have full force and effect notwithstanding the death of any of the parties interested therein. Vide Deonandan Prasad Singh v. Janki Singh (1920) 5 PLJ 314. The deceased respondents must therefore be considered as parties to the decree notwithstanding their death before it was passed.

2. It is next urged that the application to bring on record their legal representatives is barred by limitation, being made more than three years after their death; but Article 181 of the Limitation Act gives three years from the date when the right to apply accrued. The right to imp lead parties to a decree cannot arise until the decree is passed. This objection must therefore fail.

3. The further argument that the Privy Council failed to consider another objection to the execution petition on the score of limitation ignores the fact

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