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

1920 Supreme(Mad) 180

Thazhathitathil Poovvanayi – Appellant
Versus
Puthan Purayil Kundron Chokru – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. Where, as in the present case after decree, a petition has been presented under Order 21 Rule 2 to the Court whose duty it was to execute the decree, certifying, as required by the Rule, that the decree has been adjusted and praying that the petition, setting out the terms on which the decree has been adjusted, should be recorded, and the order "record" has been passed upon it, the order must be read as referring to the petition which it would have set out in full if it had been formally drawn up. It is in effect an order that the petition should be recorded as certifying the adjustment of the decree on the terms stated in the petition, in compliance with the requirements of the Rule. In these circumstances the petition is exempted from registration by virtue of the exception in Sub- Section 2 of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act in favour of "any decree or order of a Court," and the question referred to us must be answered in the affrmative. The recent decision of the privy Council in Rani Hemanta Kumara Debi v. The Midnapore Zamindary Company (1919) L.R. 46 I.A. 240 has settled the differences of opinion which are referred to in the order of reference as to the

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