Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)Section 51 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rangaswami Naicker vs Janakiammal on 5 February, 1953
343, and Rangaswami v. Janakiammal, , went on to say as follows:
S. Srinivasa Ayyar And Anr. vs Lakshmi Ammal Alias Yogambal Ammal And ... on 27 September, 1927
In Srinivasa Ayyar v. Lakshmi Ammal, ILR 56 Mad. 343, there was a maintenance decree in favour of a widow. Under the decree, a charge was created in respect of certain properties. The widow put that decree in execution in respect of properties which were not charged. The objection was that the execution must first be levied against the charged property alone and not against the other properties. That objection was overruled and execution was ordered. Thus the appeal came before this Court. This court taking into view that it was a maintenance decree and on the facts of that case, held that the execution was in order. In considering the objections of the judgment debtor, on the lines indicated above, the learned judge, who decided the case, held s follows:
Chirala Buchi Reddi vs Satti Savitramma on 17 August, 1960
In yet another case decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Buchi Reddy v. Savitramma., , two learned Judges of that court, following the decisions is Srinivasa Ayyar y. Lakshmi Ammal, I.L.R. 56 Mad.
Bal Mukunda Bisseswarlal vs Bengal-Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. on 30 March, 1927
9. Viewing the present dispute between the parties in this revision on these undisputed facts, could it be said that the defendant is not justified in asking the Executing Court to relieve him from complying with Clause (2) of the decree. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought to my notice two judgments viz. Bal Kukunda v. B.N.Railway Co. Ltd, AIR 1927 Cal.
Venkatrao vs Mallappa on 14 August, 1958
652 and Venkatrao v. Mallappa, AIR 1959 Mys. 164. In the first case, the prayer was to give a decree for Rs.5,000 as compensation for destroying certain godown and buildings and for Rs.500 as compensation for wrongfully taking away certain articles which were kept therein. The Court granted a decree after contest for the recovery of a sum of Rs.3,500 as damages and for the recovery of the movable claimed in the Schedule to the plaint and that if the movable be not delivered, the plaintiffs shall recover Rs.500as price thereof. The first portion of the decree for damages was fully satisfied. Thereafter, the Execution was levied. The prayer in the Execution petition was that the decree holder demanded for delivery of the articles as well as for the payment of the price thereof and since they did not get either and as articles had become spoilt and unfit for use, the Execution petition was levied for realisation of Rs.500 by attachment of the judgment debtor's movable. The defence to this was that the judgment debtors were ever ready to deliver the articles and it was the decree holder who had not taken the same and therefore the judgment debtor cannot be made liable for the sum of Rs.500 representing the price of the articles, Incidentally it may notices, the Court found that the articles had not deteriorated in value. The Executing Court dismissed the application and on appeal by the decree holder, the learned judges held as follows:
Manavikraman vs Moyankutti on 2 September, 1903
That the holder of such a decree cannot execute the money portion of it without taking recourse to the procedure prescribed by 0.21, R.31 Civil P.C. has been held in the case of Manavikraman v. Moyankutti, 1903 (13) M.L.J. 444. Whether procedure prescribed in that rule is so rigid that it must be followed in a case where the movable are admittedly not in existence is a question which does not arise here; but in the circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, the application to realise the money in the first instance does not lie..."
1