Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Harnandrai Badridas vs Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad & Ors on 4 May, 1973
However, the lower appellate Court by mis-construing Ex.A-2 and forgetting the specific averment in the plaint erroneously distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in Harnandraj v. Debidutt, . For the reasons mentioned above, the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate court cannot be sustained. In as much as the present suit is hit by section 47, C.P.C. the suit as laid is liable to be dismissed.
C. Ganapathy Mudaliar vs N. Krishnamachariar on 14 December, 1917
"Section 47 in our view should be construed liberally. As far back in 1892 (1892) 19 IA 166 (PC) the Privy Council spoke strongly in favour of putting a liberal construction on Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 which corresponded to present Sec. 47 of the Code of 1908. The Privy Council reiterated this in Ganapathy v. Krishnamachariar, 45 Ind App 54 : AIR 1917 PC 121. If a liberal construction be put up on section 47 it is difficult to understand why a decree-holder who has been a party to the decree will shed his character as such party merely upon purchasing the property at the execution sale. After all a decree-holder purchased the property in execution of his decree with the permission of the Court. There is no reason why he should
not retain his character of a party to the suit until the delivery of possession to him of the property purchased by him. Having regard to this consideration, if any question is raised by the judgment-debtor at the time of delivery of possession concerning the nature of the rights purchased and if the judgment-debtor offers any resistance to delivery of possession the question must be one which in our view relates to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree and arises between the parties to the suit."
V.K. Murugappa Mudaliar vs P.M. Desappa Nayanim Varu And Ors. on 12 October, 1949
529; (2) Murugappa v. Nayanim, ; (3) Chathu v. Janaki Amma, , in the light of Explanation II(b) of Section 47(3) C.P.C., which was introduced by Amendment Act, 1976, I do not feel it necessary to deal with those decisions, since those cases have been decided prior to the Amendment Act, 1976. On a reading of the above section, mere particularly Explanation II(b) which was substituted by Amendment Act 1976 it is clear that if there is any dispute or question relating to the delivery of possession with regard to the property purchased through Court auction, the same has to be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Even though the learned counsel for the respondent very much relied on para 6 of the Apex Court decision referred to above, I have already explained that the facts available clearly show that the matter has to be determined only by the Court executing the decree as per Section 47, C.P.C., referred to above. By understanding this position correctly, the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Komancheri Tarwad Karnavan Chathu ... vs Vengalil K. Janaki Amma on 2 November, 1945
529; (2) Murugappa v. Nayanim, ; (3) Chathu v. Janaki Amma, , in the light of Explanation II(b) of Section 47(3) C.P.C., which was introduced by Amendment Act, 1976, I do not feel it necessary to deal with those decisions, since those cases have been decided prior to the Amendment Act, 1976. On a reading of the above section, mere particularly Explanation II(b) which was substituted by Amendment Act 1976 it is clear that if there is any dispute or question relating to the delivery of possession with regard to the property purchased through Court auction, the same has to be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Even though the learned counsel for the respondent very much relied on para 6 of the Apex Court decision referred to above, I have already explained that the facts available clearly show that the matter has to be determined only by the Court executing the decree as per Section 47, C.P.C., referred to above. By understanding this position correctly, the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit.
Subbaraya Goundan vs Samiappa Goundan And Ors. on 3 January, 1946
Even though Mr.M.V.Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice three decisions, namely (1) Subbaraya Goundan v. Samiappa Goundan, AIR 1946 Mad.
1