Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Atmakuru Butchiah Chetti vs S. Tayar Rao Naidu And Ors. on 26 August, 1930

Joura Madhava Sahu (Dead) And Anr. vs Telli Satrughana Sahu on 4 November, 1938

Mr. Jagannadha Das contends that the view taken in Butchiah Chetti v. Tayar Rao Naidu (1930) 60 M.L.J. 721 : I.L.R. 54, could not be held to be correct in view of the Full Bench decision in Papamma v. Venkayya (1935) 69 M.L.J. 451 : I.L.R. Mad. 994 (F.B.), which held that a pre-decree agreement not to execute the decree could be pleaded in bar of execution. In this view Mr. Jagannadha Das further contends that as there was no question of any bar of limitation and therefore no impediment to setting up this plea in answer to the plaintiff's claim for execution, the defendant is precluded by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, from instituting this suit as no cause of action can be founded thereon.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Raj Trading Corporation vs Ram Saran Dass And Brothers on 10 October, 1961

The position that thus obtained after this later decision in Butchiah Chetti's case, ILR 54 Mad 184: (AIR 1931 Mad 399) so far as the Madras Presidency was concerned was that if the pre-decree arrangement sought to attack the decree Itself it could not be pleaded but if it did not go against the decree but related only to its executability it could be allowed to be pleaded in execution vide Papamma v. Venkayya, AIR 1935 Mad 860.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah vs Kalkonda Krishnaiah And Ors. on 8 March, 1973

22. The three decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are not in point. The decision in related to costs taxed in the plaint on the plaint value. Later on the plaint was amended to a lower value. Their Lordships held that the decree for costs based upon the original plaint cannot be amended as it affects the rights of the parties, and it is not a clerical or arithmetical error. The decision of Munikanniah J, in Abid Hussain v. R. K. Apul, also related to a case where third parties have acquired rights and hence amendment was not ordered under Section 152 C. P. C. The learned Judge followed the two earlier Madras Bench decisions in Narayana Iyer v. Biyari Bivi, AIR 1923 Mad 57, and Butchaiah Chetti v. Tayer Rao Naidu, AIR 1931 Mad 399.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

J. Abid Hussain vs Mrs. R.K. Paul And Anr. on 15 April, 1960

In Butchiah Chetti v. Tayar Rao Naidu, AIR 1931 Mad 399, another Division Bench consisting of Beasley, C. J. and Walsh, J. were considering the amendment of a defective decree though it was ordered when the decree was passed that it should be in terms of the compromise between the parties. When the decree was sought to be amended, the Division Bench refused to allow the amendment observing ...... in any case, once third parties intervene, an amendment should not be allowed so as to affect such third parties."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Gudimalla Satagopacharyulu Minor By ... vs Tatta Sri Rama Narasimham And Ors. on 8 December, 1949

An authority is hardly necessary for the proposition that an executing Court cannot enquire into pre-decretal arrangements that have nothing to do with execution; but Mr. Suryanarayana has referred us to Butchiah Chetti v. Tayar Rao Naidu, 54 Mad. 184: (A. I. R. (18) 1931 Mad. 399), in which a Bench of this Court held that the truth or otherwise of a pre-decretal agreement of satisfaction could not be gone into in execution.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. Narasimha Iyengar vs Lakkanna on 10 January, 1963

3. There is no dispute regarding the facts of this case, for, they are quite simple. The respondent-decree-holder comes forward with the execution of a decree in his favour, after deducting the amount paid by the judgment-debtor. His execution is confined to the recovery of a sum of Rs. 893-8-0. The judgment-debtor-appellant contends that in the execution of the decree, the decree-holder should give a deduction to a sum of Rs. 605/- according to the pre-decretal arrangement between the parties. The question arises -- Can such an agreement be pleaded in execution of a decree? The cases of various High Courts have been placed before me by both the parties. But the governing principle appears to me. is, as laid down in the case of Butchiah Chetti v. Tayar Rao Naidu, reported in AIR 1931 Mad 399, which is as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.C. Kandaswami Mudaliar vs M.A. Palaniswami Goundar on 19 January, 1942

It should also be noted that in another case to which I have been referred, viz., Butchia Chetti v. Tayar Rao Naidu (1930)60 M.L.J. 721 : I.L.R. 54 Mad. 184 it was observed that whether the arrangement was entered into pending suit or before institution of the suit appeared to make little difference. The fact therefore, that the arrangement set up was prior in date to the institution of the suit does not appear to be a reason for distinguishing this case and so differing from the conclusion reached by the learned District Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next