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

1991 Supreme(Mad) 21

SRINIVASAN
Gnanambal – Appellant
Versus
Perumal Pillai – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Krishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M.N. Padmanabhan, for M.N. Muthukumaran, Advocates.

Judgment :-

1. There is no merit in this revision petition. The first respondent filed the suit O.S.No.87 of 1968 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore, and obtained a decree on 6.8.1969 against the petitioner and the second respondent. That was challenged in Appeal and it was confirmed on 16.11.1970 by the dismissal of the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit O.S.No.194 of 1972 for setting aside the decree and for restraining the decree-holder from executing the decree. Injunction was granted during the pendency of the suit stopping execution. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed against it in A.S.No.34 of 1975 which was dismissed on 30.8.1978. The matter was brought to this Court in S.A.No.531 of 1979 which was dismissed on 30.10.1983. Thus, the decree holder was not in a position to execute the decree from 6.8.1969 to 30.10.1985.

2. Apart from that, the petitioner claimed benefits of the Debt Relief Acts 4 of 1938, 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976. She got also an order of stay of execution proceedings from 19.11.1974 onwards. The moratorium was in force for 4 years and 9 days. If that period is added to the period of 12 years normally allowed for execution t












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