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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 101

THIRUVENKATACHARIAR
Pattammal – Appellant
Versus
Krishnaswami Iyer – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Thiruvenkatachariar, J.

1. The question which has first to be considered in this case is whether this petition can be entertained under Section 115, Civil P.C. Under that section no application for revision in respect of any decree or order can be entertained if an appeal lies to the High Court in the case. The order sought to be revised was passed by the District Munsif of Shiyali upon an application for the execution of the decree of that Court in O.S. 97 of 1908. I think there can be hardly any doubt that the said order is a decree as defined in Section 2, Sub-section (2), Civil P.C. It relates to the execution of a decree for maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner under which certain immovable properties belonging to the defendants in the suit were charged for the payment of the annual maintenance decreed to her. Subsequent to the decree the respondent purchased from one of the judgment-debtors some of the properties over which the charge was created by the decree. The petitioner applied in execution of the decree to enforce the charge for realizing arrears of maintenance due to her under the decree and, so far as that relief is concerned, the respondent who had






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