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

1927 Supreme(Mad) 395

S.AYYANGAR
Sutharsana Chariar – Appellant
Versus
S. Samarapuri Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. In this case, we have heard arguments at some considerable length but before dealing with the points that arise for determination in the appeal itself, an objection to the competency of the appeal raised on behalf of the respondents may be disposed of. The objection that was taken was really two-fold. The facts relating to the objection may be very briefly stated. In the Court of first instance, before the learned Subordinate Judge, the plaintiffs obtained a decree and defendant 2 filed an appeal to the District Court. During the pendency of that appeal, defendant-appellant 2 became an insolvent and all his right, title and interest became vested in the Official Assignee of Madras, who was brought on the record as appellant 2. The appeal proceeded and the District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs action. It was thereupon that the plaintiffs preferred this second appeal. The objection that is now taken is that the real party interested in opposing the appeal and interested in the subject-matter of the appeal who is the Official Assignee at present, has not been property made a party to this second appeal at all, and secondly that





































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