Narayanan Chetti (Minor) and ors. Vs. Panchanathan Chettiar and ors.

Narayanan Chetti (Minor) and ors. vs Panchanathan Chettiar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 01, 1939

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/807909

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/807909
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Sep 01, 1939
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

- - Their father was the sole decree-holder, and although the sons may well have been entitled along with him to the benefits of the decree -a thing which has yet to be investigated -it is impossible to say that they were, or are 'decree-holders.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayanan Chetti (Minor) and ors.

Respondent

Panchanathan Chettiar and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Akhori Ramsewakprasad v. Saran Singh
Reported In: AIR1940Mad89

Excerpt

- - their father was the sole decree-holder, and although the sons may well have been entitled along with him to the benefits of the decree -a thing which has yet to be investigated -it is impossible to say that they were, or are 'decree-holders.1. we cannot accept the contention on behalf of the appellants that they are decree-holders who can execute the decree without recognition by the court which passed the decree of the devolution upon them of the decree. the appellants are not 'decree-holders' as defined in section 2, civil p.c. their father was the sole decree-holder, and although the sons may well have been entitled along with him to the benefits of the decree - a thing which has yet to be investigated - it is impossible to say that they were, or are 'decree-holders.' the decree has been transferred to them by operation of law on the death of their father and order 21, rule 16, civil p.c., is applicable. with respect, we are not able to agree with the learned judge who decided the case in akhori ramsewakprasad v. saran singh : air1937 pat607 . the decision of the learned district judge on this point is in our opinion correct. this appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. We cannot accept the contention on behalf of the appellants that they are decree-holders who can execute the decree without recognition by the Court which passed the decree of the devolution upon them of the decree. The appellants are not 'decree-holders' as defined in Section 2, Civil P.C. Their father was the sole decree-holder, and although the sons may well have been entitled along with him to the benefits of the decree - a thing which has yet to be investigated - it is impossible to say that they were, or are 'decree-holders.' The decree has been transferred to them by operation of law on the death of their father and Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C., is applicable. With respect, we are not able to agree with the learned Judge who decided the case in Akhori Ramsewakprasad v. Saran Singh : AIR1937 Pat607 . The decision of the learned District Judge on this point is in our opinion correct. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Narayanan Chetti (Minor) and ors. vs Panchanathan Chettiar an... Same Subject Civil

Civil