Binu Krishnan vs Chellappan Pillai on 10 December, 2010
Relying on the
decision in Mosa Rajayyan v. Jacob Haris it was held that
executability of the decree cannot be challenged on the said
ground.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)Documents citing
Mosa Rajayyan vs Jacob Haris on 23 January, 1981
Prem Singh vs Prakash Chand And Others ... on 21 September, 2016
In Mansa Rajayyan v. Jaib Haris AIR 1981 Kerala 135, it
has been held that final decree may be passed straightaway
without passing a preliminary decree. The passing of final
decree without passing a preliminary decree will not make the
decree null and void or inexecutable.
Ghulam Ashraf vs Abdul Khalik (D) Through L.Rs. And Anr. on 20 January, 2006
In Mansa Rajayyan v. Jaib Haris , it has been held that final decree may be passed straightaway without passing a preliminary decree. The passing of final decree without passing a preliminary decree will not make the decree null and void or inexecutable.
Gurdial Singh vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 23 March, 1999
10. The Kerala High Court in the case of Mosa Rajayyan v. Jacob Haris, AIR 1981 Ker 135, was concerned with somewhat similar situation. Therein, a final decree had been passed without the preliminary decree having been passed. The court concluded that it was not a nullity and it was an executable judgment and decree. The findings recorded in paragraph 3 of the judgment are as under (page 136) :
Smt. Radhabai Yashwant Dhotre vs Abaji Janoji Haikodi And Others on 14 April, 1995
18. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent (original plaintiff) has relied on the judgments delivered by the Kerala and Madras High Courts in the following cases : (1) Rajayyan v. Jacob Haris, (2) Marimuthu Muthiriar v. Ayya-thurai and (3) (1988) 1 Madras Law Journal 407, Nainar Mohammad Rowther v. Miner Vijayasankar. Ratio of the aforesaid decisions clearly supports the proposition as laid down in the succeeding paragraph of this judgment.
Krishnan vs Muthu Gounder And Others on 16 July, 1996
19. The decision reported in Mosa Rajayyan v. Jacob Haris, is a converse case wherein it has been held as follows (Para 3) :--
C Narayanaswamy vs K S Jayavani on 18 July, 2014
7. As there was no direct decision of the Court
cited at the bar, I had referred to the decision, which
includes a decision of the privy counsel in the case of
Mosa Rajayyan vs. Jacob Haris (AIR 1981 Kerala 135)
and the case of Subramanayam Chettiar & another vs.
Muthaiah Pillai (AIR 1957 Madras 189) wherein, there
was an incidental reference to the nature of decree
and taking the legal propositions propounded in those
7
decisions including the decision in the case of
Sonnakka vs. D.Munekka (AIR 1959 Mysore 39), view
is taken that Rule 7 which deals with preliminary
decree in redemption suit, the Court may pass a
decree in terms of clauses (a), (b) or (c) and it opined
that final decree referred to in Rule 7 of Order 34 of
CPC is the final decree that could be passed at the
instance of defendant and not at the instance of the
plaintiff. This opinion was with reference to clause (c)
sub-Rule (ii) which reads, "if payment of amount
found or declared due under by the preliminary decree
is not made on or before the date so fixed, or plaintiff
fails to pay within such time as the Court may fix, the
amount adjudged due in respect of subsequent costs,
charges, expenses and interest, the defendant shall be
entitled to apply for a final decree."
1