Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.89 seconds)

Subramania Ayyar And Six Ors. vs Raja Rajeswara Dorai Alias ... on 22 December, 1916

4. In order to determine as to whether the decree could be executed at the instance of Annada and whether the execution of the decree could proceed it was essential to consider whether Annada had any locus standi to maintain the application for execution. The lower appellate Court seems to think that the principle of constructive res judicata or rather the principle analogous to the principle of constructive res judicata has no application to execution proceedings. It seems to us that that is not a correct view to take. The tendency of the recent decisions is to hold that where the effect of the decision is that the application for execution is held as maintainable it has the effect of deciding that the person at whose instance the application is held maintainable has a right to maintain it, although there are no doubt some observations in some of the decisions in the Madras Court to the effect that Expl. (5), Section 11 of the Code or the principle embodied therein has no application to orders made in the course of execution: see the case of Sulramania Ayyar v. Raja Rajeswara Dorai AIR, 1918 Mad 1167, where the observations are really obiter and it does not seem on principle that any distinction should be made in this respect between suits and execution proceedings. We are therefore of opinion that the first contention is sound and must prevail.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Upendra Chandra Singh vs Sakhi Chand on 16 April, 1912

5. The next contention is, as has already been stated, that the application for ascertainment of mesne profits (which was directed to be made in the course of the execution) having been dismissed it cannot be said that the entire claim for mesne profits has been dismissed. There was no doubt some authority for the contrary view: see the case of Upendra Chandra Singha v. Sakhi Chand (1912) 15 IC 709, but it seems that the true legal position has been indicated in a recent decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Kedarnath Goenka v. Anant Prosad Singh . It was held in that case by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee which approved of the decision of the Patna High Court that even under the Code of 1882 such proceedings should be held to be proceedings in execution and not in the suit and that therefore substitution was not necessary.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kedarnath Goenka vs Anant Prasad Singh on 9 February, 1925

5. The next contention is, as has already been stated, that the application for ascertainment of mesne profits (which was directed to be made in the course of the execution) having been dismissed it cannot be said that the entire claim for mesne profits has been dismissed. There was no doubt some authority for the contrary view: see the case of Upendra Chandra Singha v. Sakhi Chand (1912) 15 IC 709, but it seems that the true legal position has been indicated in a recent decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Kedarnath Goenka v. Anant Prosad Singh . It was held in that case by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee which approved of the decision of the Patna High Court that even under the Code of 1882 such proceedings should be held to be proceedings in execution and not in the suit and that therefore substitution was not necessary.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1