Manammal Vs. the Collector of Trichinopoly

Manammal vs The Collector of Trichinopoly

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 06, 1909

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/808521

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/808521
Court: Chennai
Judge: Munro and ;Abdur Rahim, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 06, 1909
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), Sections 266(l), 273 -Decree for maintenance is a right to future maintenance--Not liable to attachment. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manammal

Respondent

The Collector of Trichinopoly

Legal References

Cases Referred: Monessar Doss v. Beer Pratap Sahee
Reported In: 5Ind.Cas.879

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), sections 266(l), 273 -decree for maintenance is a right to future maintenance--not liable to attachment. - 1. the decree for maintenance is a right to future maintenance and under section 266(l) of the civil procedure code of 1882 cannot be attached. it is not a money decree and cannot be attached under section 273 of civil procedure code of 1882, as seems to have been done in this case. perhaps the proper procedure would be that laid down in monessar doss v. beer pratap sahee 15 w.r. 188. the appeal is allowed and the attachment set aside. there will be no costs.

Full Judgment

1. The decree for maintenance is a right to future maintenance and under Section 266(l) of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 cannot be attached. It is not a money decree and cannot be attached under Section 273 of Civil Procedure Code of 1882, as seems to have been done in this case. Perhaps the proper procedure would be that laid down in Monessar Doss v. Beer Pratap Sahee 15 W.R. 188. The appeal is allowed and the attachment set aside. There will be no costs.

Same Parties Manammal vs The Collector of Trichinopoly Same Subject Civil Same Judge Munro and ;Abdur Rahim, JJ.

Civil