Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Adhilakshmi Ammal vs Srinivasa Goundan Alias Krishna ... on 10 September, 1943 cites

V.C.T.N. Chidambaram Chetti vs Theivanai Ammal on 6 April, 1923

3. It is true that Chidambaram Chetti v. Theivanai Ammal ('24) 11 A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 1 bears some resemblance to the present case, in that the appellant here seems to have asked the Court to issue a notice to the judgment-debtors under O.21, Rule 66, which relates to the settlement of the terms of proclamation, and not under Order 21, Rule 22, which relates to the executability of the decree. We do not however know what the terms of the notice were. We must assume that as an order under Order 21, Rule 22 was necessary, in view of the fact that more than two years had elapsed from the date of the decree, the notice was under Order 21, Rule 22, as well as under Order 21, Rule 66. That defendant 2 realised that he could raise objections to the executability of the decree is shown by the fact that he later asked the Court to limit the sale to certain items of property. The learned Judges in the Full Bench decision were at pains to point out that their decision was limited to the facts of that case; and it can be distinguished on the ground that no notice under Order 21, Rule 22 was there necessary and none was sent.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

M.R.A.L. Lakshmanan Chetty vs M.R.A.P.L. Palaniappa Chetty on 14 March, 1928

2. Although it is true that E.P. No. 270 of 1937 was dismissed shortly after the date fixed for the appearance of the defendant, that would not mean that the earlier order "proclaim and sell" was not an order that was binding on him, with its implication of executability. If, for example, defendant 2 had appeared and raised the question of executability, the Court would have had to consider whether the decree was executable or not; and if a decision adverse to defendant 2 had been passed, there can be no doubt that that decision would have been final between the parties, even though shortly afterwards the petition had been dismissed; for the order would have been separately appealable. Similarly, such an order would have been final and conclusive against any person who had failed to raise a defence to the executability of the decree, despite the fact that the execution petition was subsequently dismissed : vide Lakshmanan Chetti v. Palaniappa Chetti ('28) 15 A.I.R. 1928 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Govinda Krishna Aiyar vs Minor Sankaralinga Naicker, Through ... on 3 July, 1942

4. Although it is the duty of the Court to declare the service to be sufficient if the service is not a personal one; yet decisions of this Court from 3 I.C. 474, onwards have consistently held that the omission to expressly declare a service sufficient does not mean that there has been no due service. This principle has been very recently stated in Govinda Krishna Aiyar v. Sankaralinga Naicker ('43) 30 A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 55, and a little earlier in A still earlier decision to the ('40) 27 A.I.R. 1940 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1