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

1930 Supreme(Mad) 38

RAMESAM
Bhyraraju Ramaraju – Appellant
Versus
Pulavarthi Lakshmiah – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Ramesam, J.

1. The facts which give rise to this revision petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner before me obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 617 of 928 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tanuku against four judgment-debtors. In execution of that decree he brought certain properties belonging to all the judgment-debtors to sale. The sale was effected on 2nd April 1929. Prior to the sale he applied under Order 21, Rule 72 for permission to bid in the auction and to set off the purchase amount against his decree as far as it goes. This application was ordered. When the sale was made on 2nd April 1929, giving operation to the order for set-off nothing was deposited by the petitioner nor was he asked to make any deposit. The respondent before me obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 33 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court of Narasapur against three of the four judgment-debtors of the other suit. On 11th April 1929 he applied before the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur for transmission of his decree to the District Munsifs Court, Tanuku. It was dispatched on 12th April and reached Tanuku on the 15th April. In anticipation of the arrival of the decre




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