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.

Viraragava Ayyangar Vs. Varada Ayyangar

Viraragava Ayyangar vs Varada Ayyangar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 16, 1882
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776046

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code, 1877, Sections 294, 295 - Rateable distribution of assets--Decree-holder for unascertained mesne profits who has applied for execution entitled to. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Viraragava Ayyangar

Respondent

Varada Ayyangar

Legal References

Reported In
(1882)ILR5Mad123

Excerpt

civil procedure code, 1877, sections 294, 295 - rateable distribution of assets--decree-holder for unascertained mesne profits who has applied for execution entitled to. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. the 295th section of the civil procedure code entitles all holders of decrees for money, who, prior to realization, have applied to the court holding the assets for execution of their decrees and have not obtained satisfaction, to share in the distribution. the decree held by the petitioner for mesne profits was a decree for money. although the amount was still uncertain, the petitioner had applied to the court to execute that decree. he had not only petitioned that the mesne profits should be ascertained, but he had applied on april 1st, 1881, to attach certain immoveable property under section 255. he came within the purview of section 295. mr. ramachandra rau saheb, however, argues that there wore no assets in the hands of the court, because the court having granted his client, the rival decree-holder, leave to bid, was bound to set off the amount of his bid against so much of the judgment-debt. it is true that section 294 is awkwardly expressed, but it must be read with the following section; and to give effect to both, it must be held that the receipt can only be accepted for so much of the judgment-debt as the assets applicable to its discharge may suffice to satisfy.2. the order of the subordinate judge is set aside, and the subordinate judge is directed to pass fresh orders. the petitioner will recover the costs of this application from the respondent.

Full Judgment

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The 295th Section of the Civil Procedure Code entitles all holders of decrees for money, who, prior to realization, have applied to the Court holding the assets for execution of their decrees and have not obtained satisfaction, to share in the distribution. The decree held by the petitioner for mesne profits was a decree for money. Although the amount was still uncertain, the petitioner had applied to the Court to execute that decree. He had not only petitioned that the mesne profits should be ascertained, but he had applied on April 1st, 1881, to attach certain immoveable property under Section 255. He came within the purview of Section 295. Mr. Ramachandra Rau Saheb, however, argues that there wore no assets in the hands of the Court, because the Court having granted his client, the rival decree-holder, leave to bid, was bound to set off the amount of his bid against so much of the judgment-debt. It is true that Section 294 is awkwardly expressed, but it must be read with the following section; and to give effect to both, it must be held that the receipt can only be accepted for so much of the judgment-debt as the assets applicable to its discharge may suffice to satisfy.

2. The order of the Subordinate Judge is set aside, and the Subordinate Judge is directed to pass fresh orders. The petitioner will recover the costs of this application from the respondent.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial