Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.15 seconds)
Soorianarayana Chettiar vs Shenbagathammal on 17 March, 1944 cites

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

9. Can it be said in this case that when I the appellant received notice Under Order 21, Rule 66, ho had any information as to what the properties were that were brought for sale? I have sent for the notice and I find the list of properties is not given in it. All that is stated therein is that a date had been fixed for settling the terms of the proclamation. The case is therefore on all fours with the case of the Full Bench in Chidambaram Chetti v. Theivani Ammal ('24) 11 A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 1 and following the decision in that case I find that the appellant is not barred by res judicata from raising the plea that the properties are not liable to be sold merely by reason of the fact that ho failed to be present on the date of hearing fixed for settling the proclamation. The appeal is allowed. The order of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the petition is remanded to the first Court for considering the question as to whether the properties are liable to be sold in execution or not and proceed with the petition. The costs of this appeal as also the costs of the lower appellate Court will follow and abide the final result of the execution petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

The Maharaja Of Cochin, By His Agent The ... vs Thupran on 20 August, 1940

7. Then the next point for consideration is whether not having appeared in Court after he was made aware of the execution proceedings and after he was validly served with notice Under Order 21, Rule 66 it would be open to him to raise the objection that the properties could not be sold. Whatever might be said, with regard to the order directing attachment which was passed without notice the order passed on 2nd June 1942 directing the sale of the properties clearly amounts to a finding that the properties were liable to be sold and could be sold in execution of the decree. That order therefore might operate as res judicata in which case the proper course for the judgment-debtor would be to file an appeal against the order directing the sale. As pointed out in Maharajah of Cochin v. Thupran ('41) 28 A.I.R. 1941 Mad. 861 at p. 794, some of the matters decided by the Court in approving the sale proclamation are, of course, administrative only, but the question as to whether the decision of the Court would be final or not will depend upon the nature of the decision. The decision alleged to have been made in this case, the correctness of which is questioned, is the decision on the point whether the properties could be sold or not. The Court had necessarily to decide whether the property could be sold or not before it directs the sale of the properties. Though the question could be decided before an order for attachment could be made, still it must necessarily be decided at the time when the order directing the sale is passed. In this case, the will had been produced and the decree-holder's contention was that the right under the will was capable of being attached and sold, as is clear from the endorsement on the execution petition made at the time of its representation and referred to above.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1