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

1926 Supreme(Mad) 472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Odgers, J.
Pulipaty Subbayya
Versus
Kandi Subba Reddi And Ors.
Decided On : 22 September, 1926

The court emphasized the absolute authority of the Court to raise the attachment and the strict interpretation of Section 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:

Attachment - Consent of Parties - Court's Authority to Raise Attachment

Fact of the Case:

The court considered the contention that there can be a partial raising of an attachment by consent of parties outside the Court. The court rejected this contention, stating that the Court must raise the attachment unless it becomes inoperative by the payment of the decree debt.

Finding of the Court:

The Second Appeal was dismissed with costs, and the court upheld the view taken by the learned District Judge regarding Section 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues: The issues involved the raising of attachment by consent of parties outside the Court and the interpretation of Section 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the attachment cannot be raised by consent of parties outside the Court, and Section 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure is absolute in its application.

Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed with costs, and the court affirmed the view taken by the learned District Judge.

JUDGMENT

Odgers, J.

1. It is contended that there can be a partial raising of an attachment by consent of parties outside the Court. This cannot be so; Court must raise the attachment unless it becomes inoperative by the payment of the decree debt (vide Kunhi Moosa v. Makki [1900] 23 Mad. 478 There is no force in the plea that the attachment was raised by the agreement Ex. B. Nothing is said about it and if there were, it would need an application to and an order of Court. Next the argument as to Section 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No authority has been shown to me against the view taken by the learned District Judge. The section appears to me to be absolute. If a sale by consent or with the connivance of the decree-holder were to be excepted the section would no doubt have said so.

2. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.

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 Back to top