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.

Krishnayya Vs. Unnissa Begam

Krishnayya vs Unnissa Begam

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 04, 1891
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791742

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, Sections 234, 368 - Execution of decree--Death of judgment-debtor after attachment and before sale--Representatives not joined. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishnayya

Respondent

Unnissa Begam

Legal References

Cases Referred
Stowell v. Ajudhia Nath I.L.R.
Reported In
(1892)ILR15Mad399

Excerpt

civil procedure code, sections 234, 368 - execution of decree--death of judgment-debtor after attachment and before sale--representatives not joined. - 1. we agree with the learned judge that the decision in ramasami v. bagirathi i.l.r. 6 mad. 180 was right, and see no reason why we should refer this case to the full bench because of the decision in stowell v. ajudhia nath i.l.r. 6 all. 255. in that case the contest was between two mortgagees, the second mortgagee having been the first purchaser. after the sale to him the first mortgagee attached and brought the property to sale, and the mortgagee died prior to the sale. the second mortgagee had, however, purchased his interest subject to the first mortgagee's claim, and the death of the original owner could not affect the proceedings in any way. the remark of oldfield, j., was not concurred in by straight, j., and both judges were agreed that the question whether the sale might be voidable at the instance of the legal representative did not arise for decision.2. the property might be liable in the hands of the legal representatives, but the right, title and interest of a deceased person could not be sold. the sale without notice to him of property belonging to a person not a darty to the suit was a material irregularity and must necessarily cause him substantial injury.

Full Judgment

1. We agree with the learned Judge that the decision in Ramasami v. Bagirathi I.L.R. 6 Mad. 180 was right, and see no reason why we should refer this case to the Full Bench because of the decision in Stowell v. Ajudhia Nath I.L.R. 6 All. 255. In that case the contest was between two mortgagees, the second mortgagee having been the first purchaser. After the sale to him the first mortgagee attached and brought the property to sale, and the mortgagee died prior to the sale. The second mortgagee had, however, purchased his interest subject to the first mortgagee's claim, and the death of the original owner could not affect the proceedings in any way. The remark of OLDFIELD, J., was not concurred in by STRAIGHT, J., and both Judges were agreed that the question whether the sale might be voidable at the instance of the legal representative did not arise for decision.

2. The property might be liable in the hands of the legal representatives, but the right, title and interest of a deceased person could not be sold. The sale without notice to him of property belonging to a person not a Darty to the suit was a material irregularity and must necessarily cause him substantial injury.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial