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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 259

MACKAY
Chinnaswamy Kavirayer – Appellant
Versus
Periathambi Butler – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Mackay, J.

1. This is a petition in which it is sought to set aside an order directing a sale in execution made ex parte in a Small Cause Suit. The date of decree was 16th February 1920, of the prior application in execution 3rd February 1923, and of the present application 22nd November 1926. Prima facie it is barred unless a payment of Rs. 50 credited on 15th April 1925, was made towards interest, as such, that is to say, wholly or in part towards interest.

2. The first point taken is that the payment was not certified under Order 21, Rule 2. There is, however, no difficulty as to this, for there is nothing in Order 21, Rule 2, which prescribes a time within which the payment should be certified; a statement made by a decree-holder in his application for execution may be accepted as a certificate: Masilhamani Mudaliar v. Sethuswami Iyer [1917] 41 Mad.

251. In an affidavit in this case the decree-holder averred that this money had been received from the defendant (petitioner) " towards the decree amount, costs, etc." The next question is whether this can be treated as a payment towards interest as such within the meaning of Section 20, Lim. Act. In my opinion, it cannot. Moha

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