Chennai Court January 1919 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Koppaka Chandrayya Vs. F.W.R. Robertson, Trustee to the Maharaja of Vi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.641
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. In this case the petitioner purchased the property privately from the judgment-debtor. Other persons had purchased portions of the property before him; the 2nd counter-petitioner is an auction-purchaser. The contention of the petitioner is that as he himself and the previous vendees have paid the full amount of the decree the sale should be set aside. The lower Appellate Court held, following the decision of this Court in Karunakara Menon v. Krishna Menon 27 Ind. Cas. 952 : 28 M.L.J. 262 : 2 L.W. 196 : 39 M.k 429 that as the petitioner paid only a portion of the amount he is not entitled to ask that the auction should be set aside. That decision has been sought to be distinguished before me. In my opinion the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the present case is covered by the authority cited by the lower Appellate Court. Even apart from this view I fail to see what question of jurisdiction there can be for interference under Section 115 of the Code o...
S.M.S. Matharasappa Chettiar Vs. P.C. Muthu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.931
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner before me obtained a money decree against one Seemia Pillai and his co-parceners. In execution of the decree he purchased the property in dispute subject to a mortgage right created by the judgment-debtors. During the pendency of the application for sale a suit was brought by the mortgagees against the common judgment' debtors and a decree was obtained. The present petitioner thereupon paid the money due under the mortgage decree and asked that satisfaction may be entered up. His application was resisted on the ground that he not being a representative of the judgment debtors had no locus standi to apply under Order XXI, Rule 2. Both the Courts below have upheld this contention and rejected the application of the petitioner. Against that order this civil revision petition has been filed.2. An objection was taken in limine on the ground that if the contention of the petitioner is right, his proper course was to have preferred a civil miscellaneous ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›