Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)Venkatagiri Iyer vs Sadagopachariar And Anr. on 14 October, 1900
4. With this alteration of the law the ratio decidendi of the decisions in Venkatagari Iyer v. Sadagopackariar (1600) 14 M.L.J. 359 and Palaniyappa Chettiyar v. Savari Nayadu (1908) 18 M.LJ. 548, has lost its force.
Sheo Golam Lall vs Beni Prosad on 24 February, 1879
5. We find no difficulty in following the decisions in Sheo Golam Lall v. Beni Prasad (1879) I.L.R. 5 C. 27, Durga Prasad Banerfee v. Lalit Mehun Singh Roy (1897) I.L.R. 25 C. 86 and Thakoor Dyal Singh v. Sarju Pershad Misser (1892) I.L.R. 20 C 22, and we think accordingly that the 2nd defendant, who had the benefit of the arrangement for delay in execution and the order passed sanctioning it, is not at liberty to resile from that arrangement.
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Thakoor Dyal Singh And Ors. vs Sarju Pershad Misser And Anr. on 21 July, 1892
5. We find no difficulty in following the decisions in Sheo Golam Lall v. Beni Prasad (1879) I.L.R. 5 C. 27, Durga Prasad Banerfee v. Lalit Mehun Singh Roy (1897) I.L.R. 25 C. 86 and Thakoor Dyal Singh v. Sarju Pershad Misser (1892) I.L.R. 20 C 22, and we think accordingly that the 2nd defendant, who had the benefit of the arrangement for delay in execution and the order passed sanctioning it, is not at liberty to resile from that arrangement.
1