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.

Ramayya Ayyar Vs. Krishnachariar

Ramayya Ayyar vs Krishnachariar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 26, 1919
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/796401

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 (Act V of 1908), Order XXI, Rule 83 - Execution of decree--Equity of redemption belonging to two brothers, attachment of--Permission to one brother to raise decretal amount by private sale-Brother not joining in sale, title of, whether affected--Suit to recover half share, maintainability of. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramayya Ayyar

Respondent

Krishnachariar

Legal References

Cases Referred
Danappa v. Yamnappa
Reported In
52Ind.Cas.956

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 83 - execution of decree--equity of redemption belonging to two brothers, attachment of--permission to one brother to raise decretal amount by private sale-brother not joining in sale, title of, whether affected--suit to recover half share, maintainability of. - 1. in this case the equity of redemption in certain property belonging in equal shares to two divided brothers was attached in execution of a decree against both and ordered to be sold in execution. the senior brother obtained leave to sell privately under order xxi, rule 83 of the code of civil procedure. the junior brother objected and the district munsif, instead of cancelling the permission to sell privately, allowed the sale to go on, leaving the elder brother's right to sell his brother's interest undecided. on the authority of danappa v. yamnappa 26 b.p 379 4 bom. l.r. 61 we must hold that the senior brother had no power to sell his brother's interest. the property was purchased by the defendant, a prior mortgagee, from both the brothers, and who has since been in possession and is now sued by the younger brother for his half of the suit property.2. at the date of the defendant's purchase the interests of both brothers had become liable to be sold for the decree debt by virtue of the attachment and order of sale. in these circumstances the defendant having by his purchase paid the money to free the plaintiff's share of the property from sale in execution of the decree, we do not think the plaintiff should be allowed to recover from him, except on payment of one-half of the price paid by the defendant with interest at 6 per cent. as regards the 8 cents, we think they belong to the defendant and that plaintiff has no interest in this. the decree will be modified accordingly, the final decree to be passed by the district munsif. parties to pay and receive proportionate ousts in the high court.

Full Judgment

1. In this case the equity of redemption in certain property belonging in equal shares to two divided brothers was attached in execution of a decree against both and ordered to be sold in execution. The senior brother obtained leave to sell privately under Order XXI, Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The junior brother objected and the District Munsif, instead of cancelling the permission to sell privately, allowed the sale to go on, leaving the elder brother's right to sell his brother's interest undecided. On the authority of Danappa v. Yamnappa 26 B.P 379 4 Bom. L.R. 61 we must hold that the senior brother had no power to sell his brother's interest. The property was purchased by the defendant, a prior mortgagee, from both the brothers, and who has since been in possession and is now sued by the younger brother for his half of the suit property.

2. At the date of the defendant's purchase the interests of both brothers had become liable to be sold for the decree debt by virtue of the attachment and order of sale. In these circumstances the defendant having by his purchase paid the money to free the plaintiff's share of the property from sale in execution of the decree, we do not think the plaintiff should be allowed to recover from him, except on payment of one-half of the price paid by the defendant with interest at 6 per cent. As regards the 8 cents, we think they belong to the defendant and that plaintiff has no interest in this. The decree will be modified accordingly, the final decree to be passed by the District Munsif. Parties to pay and receive proportionate ousts in the High Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial