Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Venkayya Vs. Raghavacharlu

Venkayya vs Raghavacharlu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 26, 1897
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/775669

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Civil;Limitation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil;Limitation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Venkayya

Respondent

Raghavacharlu

Legal References

Cases Referred
Kurupam Zamindar v. Sadasiva
Reported In
(1898)8MLJ79

Excerpt

- 1. we have no doubt but that the learned judge is right in holding that applications made to obtain restitution under a decree in accordance with section 583, civil procedure code, are proceedings in execution of that decree, and are governed as regards limitation by article 179 of the second schedule of the limitation act. this is in accordance with the view taken in nand ram v. sita ram, i.l.r. 8 a., 545.2. the appellant's vakil relies on a remark in the case reported in kurupam zamindar v. sadasiva, i.l.r. 10 m. 60 to the effect --that the learned judges in that case were disposed to think that the application in a similar case was governed by article 178. that remark, however, is a mere obiter dictum, and as such is not binding on us. one of the judges who took part in that case is the learned judge whose order in the present case rules that article 179 is the article properly applicable.3. the appeal, therefore, fails and we dismiss it with costs.

Full Judgment

1. We have no doubt but that the learned Judge is right in holding that applications made to obtain restitution under a decree in accordance with Section 583, Civil Procedure Code, are proceedings in execution of that decree, and are governed as regards limitation by Article 179 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. This is in accordance with the view taken in Nand Ram v. Sita Ram, I.L.R. 8 A., 545.

2. The appellant's vakil relies on a remark in the case reported in Kurupam Zamindar v. Sadasiva, I.L.R. 10 M. 60 to the effect --that the learned Judges in that case were disposed to think that the application in a similar case was governed by Article 178. That remark, however, is a mere obiter dictum, and as such is not binding on us. One of the Judges who took part in that case is the learned Judge whose order in the present case rules that Article 179 is the article properly applicable.

3. The appeal, therefore, fails and we dismiss it with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial