Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)Meyyappa Chettiar vs Chidambaram Chettiar on 17 December, 1923
"It is urged for the petitioner that the second claim petition by the respondents was not maintainable. This is on the ground that the attachment before judgment should be taken to continue right through. I think that this means that the attachment before judgment and the re-attachment could co-exist, which can never be the effect of re-attachment is that the attachment before judgment, assuming that it continued when the earlier petition was dismissed, merged in it. The result of it is the respondent would have another opportunity to file a claim. This view seems to receive support from the observation of Ramesam, J., in Meyyappa Chettiar v. Chidambaram Chettiar, 1924 ILR 47 Mad.,483." The learned judge said:
The Dharapuram Janopakara Nidhi, ... vs K. Lakshminarayana Chettiar on 13 February, 1939
13. There is no quarrel over the proposition laid down by Veerasami, J. But, on facts, the petitioner had full knowledge of the first attachment and he had kept quiet for several years without filing an application to raise the attachment or a claim petition. The petitioner had claimed that he had no knowledge of the first attachment but it is to be pointed out that the first attachment continued throughout even after the decree that has been passed in the suit. As such, it cannot be contended that on the second attachment or re-attachment, the petitioner has got right to put forth his claim and seek to raise the attachment. This is because, the petitioner had full knowledge of the first attachment, and he kept silent for years together and hence on facts, the decision relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of this case.
C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb vs Arji Papa Rao And Others on 14 November, 1962
15. It was next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the fraud on the creditor, which was one of the ground, on which his petition has been rejected, has to be raised in the form of a suit and not as a defence in the application. This contention, in my view, has to be stated and rejected in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Abdul Shukoor Saheb v. Papa Rao, 1964 (I) MLJ 49 (SC). In the said decision, it has been held that Section 53(1) of the Transfer or Property Act, does not prescribe any method of avoidance and it could be well realised in defence as well. It has been held in the said decision as follows:-
Transfer of Property Act, 1977
Viswanathan vs Muthuswamy Gounder And Ors. on 6 July, 1977
In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Suryamurthy, J., in Viswanathan v. Muthusamy Gounder, . In the said decision, Suryamurthy, J. was concerned about the order of attachment and the attachment passed in execution of money decree and the payment that has been ordered by the Court. The learned Judge had held that the order of attachment takes effect from the moment it is brought to the notice of the garnishee and not from the moment it is passed. This is not the case here. In the present case, the statutory rule, viz., Sub-rule (3) of Rule 54 of Order 21 stares at the petitioner and he had full knowledge of the order of attachment and his action is deliberate as found by the two courts below and his transaction is not supported by consideration, nor the sale had been given effect to by the petitioner being inducted into possession, nor there has been payment of sale consideration as found by the courts below.
1