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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Avadai Ammal (Died) Her Legal ...
Versus
Krishnan Chetti
Decided On : 19 March, 1928

The legal representative of a deceased appellant can continue the appeal in a matter in execution.

Headnote:

Appeal - Matter in Execution - Legal representative of deceased appellant

Fact of the Case:

The appellant died during the appeal process in a matter in execution.

Finding of the Court:

The Court rejected the contention that the appeal became incompetent upon the appellant's death, and allowed the petition as the trial Court had held that the petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased appellant.

Issues: Competency of appeal in a matter in execution upon appellant's death

Ratio Decidendi: The ruling in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliammai Achi did not relate to the case of an appeal against an order in execution, and the Court was not prepared to extend the application of the ruling to the present case.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and held that the ordinary procedure relating to appeals when an appellant dies should apply.

ORDER

1. Respondent contends that, as this is an appeal in a matter in execution, the appeal became incompetent when appellant died on 16th November, 1926, and that the ruling of this Court in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliammai Achi (1926) I.L.R. 50 M. 1 51 M.L.J. 745 will preclude the maintainability of the appeal, and that the present petitioners remedy is by way of a fresh execution petition. The ruling in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliammai Achi (1926) I.L.R. 50 M. 1 51 M.L.J. 745 did not relate to the case of an appeal against an order in execution, and there are obvious difficulties, e.g., questions of limitation, the maintainability of successive applications, etc., which will arise if the ruling is applied to cases of appeal.

2. We are not prepared to extend the application of the ruling to the present case and see no reason why the ordinary procedure relating to appeals when an appellant dies should not apply.

3. We reject the objection. The trial Court has held that petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased appellant. We allow the petition.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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