Dharanamma Vs. Subba and ors.

Dharanamma vs Subba and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 23, 1883

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/789309

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/789309
Court: Chennai
Judge: Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Hutchins, J.
Decided On: Nov 23, 1883
Subject: Limitation;Civil

Case Summary

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

Limitation Act, Schedule II, Article 179, Clause 4 - Execution of decree--Step in aid of. -

Key legal issue: Limitation;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dharanamma

Respondent

Subba and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: (1883)ILR7Mad306

Excerpt

limitation act, schedule ii, article 179, clause 4 - execution of decree--step in aid of. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. several properties had been attached and their sale ordered when the judgment-debtor represented to the court that a portion of one of them, no. iii, was an endowment, and he prayed that the other properties i, ii, and v, and the other part of iii might be sold first, and stated that, if a sufficient sum was not realized, he would pay the balance. the decree-holder's vakil concurred in the application that i and ii should be first sold, but he insisted that iv should also be first sold, and that, if by the sale of i, ii, and iv the amount realized was insufficient, the whole of no. iii should be sold and the court made the order accordingly. we are of opinion that the act of the vakil was a sufficient application to the court to take a step in aid of execution. he concurred in asking the court to give directions as to the order in which the lots should be sold, and he asked for an order that a lot reserved should subsequently be sold in its entirety and not partially. we reverse the order of the district court and restore that of the munsif with costs throughout.

Full Judgment

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

1. Several properties had been attached and their sale ordered when the judgment-debtor represented to the Court that a portion of one of them, No. III, was an endowment, and he prayed that the other properties I, II, and V, and the other part of III might be sold first, and stated that, if a sufficient sum was not realized, he would pay the balance. The decree-holder's vakil concurred in the application that I and II should be first sold, but he insisted that IV should also be first sold, and that, if by the sale of I, II, and IV the amount realized was insufficient, the whole of No. III should be sold and the Court made the order accordingly. We are of opinion that the act of the vakil was a sufficient application to the Court to take a step in aid of execution. He concurred in asking the Court to give directions as to the order in which the lots should be sold, and he asked for an order that a lot reserved should subsequently be sold in its entirety and not partially. We reverse the order of the District Court and restore that of the Munsif with costs throughout.

Same Parties Dharanamma vs Subba and ors. Same Subject Limitation;Civil Same Judge Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Hutchins, J.

Limitation;Civil