Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Elanthammal And Another vs Alagar And Another on 15 November, 2000

M. Indirani And Ors. vs Sri Saravana Finance By Its ... on 28 October, 2003

In 2001(1) CTC 287 (ELANTHAMMAL AND ANOTHER v. ALAGAR AND ANOTHER) after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 SC 1827 (cited supra), it was indicated by a learned single Judge of this Court that third parties to suit claiming possession of immovable property can take recourse to the procedure contemplated under Order 21, Rule 97 and Rule 99 CPC by filing an application.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P K Misra - Full Document

M. Indirani vs Sri Saravana Finance on 28 October, 2003

In 2001(1) CTC 287 (ELANTHAMMAL AND ANOTHER v. ALAGAR AND ANOTHER) after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 SC 1827 (cited supra), it was indicated by a learned single Judge of this Court that third parties to suit claiming possession of immovable property can take recourse to the procedure contemplated under Order 21, Rule 97 and Rule 99 CPC by filing an application.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P K Misra - Full Document

K.Padmavathi vs S.Abdul Raheem on 4 August, 2017

538 [Elanthammal and another v. Alagar and another] and (2013) 7 MLJ 35 [B.Dhanam v. P.Usha Rani and Others]. Relying on the above said decisions, it is vehemently contended that in an application preferred under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C., the Court is bound to determine the questions of right, title or interest in the property in the execution application itself and the parties should not be driven to seek the remedy by filing a separate civil suit and in such view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the Court below has erred in dismissing the application preferred by the revision petitioners on the above mentioned ground. No doubt, as argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the Court below has erred in holding that the revision petitioners have to establish their right only by resorting to a separate civil action and cannot get redressal in the application preferred by them under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C. A perusal of the above said decisions would go to show that the Executing Court itself is empowered to determine all such questions in the said application and the parties need not be directed to file a separate civil suit for the said purpose as found in Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

K.Padmavathi vs S.Abdul Raheem on 4 August, 2017

538 [Elanthammal and another v. Alagar and another] and (2013) 7 MLJ 35 [B.Dhanam v. P.Usha Rani and Others]. Relying on the above said decisions, it is vehemently contended that in an application preferred under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C., the Court is bound to determine the questions of right, title or interest in the property in the execution application itself and the parties should not be driven to seek the remedy by filing a separate civil suit and in such view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the Court below has erred in dismissing the application preferred by the revision petitioners on the above mentioned ground. No doubt, as argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the Court below has erred in holding that the revision petitioners have to establish their right only by resorting to a separate civil action and cannot get redressal in the application preferred by them under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C. A perusal of the above said decisions would go to show that the Executing Court itself is empowered to determine all such questions in the said application and the parties need not be directed to file a separate civil suit for the said purpose as found in Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document
1