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.

Paramasiva Vs. Krishna

Paramasiva vs Krishna

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 08, 1891
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/782659

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.

Practice - Non-joinder--Civil Procedure Code--Act X of 1877, Section 294, amended by Act XII of 1879--Purchase at a Court-sale on behalf of a judgment-creditor without permission of the Court. - - 1. As to the point that plaintiff's purchase being on behalf of the judgment-creditor was invalid being made without ...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Paramasiva

Respondent

Krishna

Legal References

Reported In
(1891)ILR14Mad498

Excerpt

practice - non-joinder--civil procedure code--act x of 1877, section 294, amended by act xii of 1879--purchase at a court-sale on behalf of a judgment-creditor without permission of the court. - - 1. as to the point that plaintiff's purchase being on behalf of the judgment-creditor was invalid being made without the permission of the court, the last clause of section 294 of the code of civil procedure, act x of 1877, in force at the time of the purchase as amended by act xii of 1879 stood as in the corresponding section of the present code, and clearly negatives, in our opinion, the view that not obtaining the permission of the court invalidates the purchase and this opinion is in accordance with the decisions referred to by the district judge.1. as to the point that plaintiff's purchase being on behalf of the judgment-creditor was invalid being made without the permission of the court, the last clause of section 294 of the code of civil procedure, act x of 1877, in force at the time of the purchase as amended by act xii of 1879 stood as in the corresponding section of the present code, and clearly negatives, in our opinion, the view that not obtaining the permission of the court invalidates the purchase and this opinion is in accordance with the decisions referred to by the district judge.2. the objection that vedanta ayyangar's heirs were not made parties to the suit was we think rightly disallowed by the district judge as taken too late. it is urged that appellant is entitled to compensation for improvements. the district munsif disallowed the claim, and though it was made a ground of appeal to the district court, it does not appear to have been urged in that court, nor do we see any legal foundation for the claim.

Full Judgment

1. As to the point that plaintiff's purchase being on behalf of the judgment-creditor was invalid being made without the permission of the Court, the last clause of Section 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act X of 1877, in force at the time of the purchase as amended by Act XII of 1879 stood as in the corresponding section of the present Code, and clearly negatives, in our opinion, the view that not obtaining the permission of the Court invalidates the purchase and this opinion is in accordance with the decisions referred to by the District Judge.

2. The objection that Vedanta Ayyangar's heirs were not made parties to the suit was we think rightly disallowed by the District Judge as taken too late. It is urged that appellant is entitled to compensation for improvements. The District Munsif disallowed the claim, and though it was made a ground of appeal to the District Court, it does not appear to have been urged in that Court, nor do we see any legal foundation for the claim.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial