Skip to content


Yarlagadda Bapanna Vs. Devata China Yerakayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.A.O. No. 98 of 1961
Judge
Reported inAIR1966AP151
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 47, 145 and 151 - Order 41, Rule 5(3)
AppellantYarlagadda Bapanna
RespondentDevata China Yerakayya
Appellant AdvocateC. Poornaiah, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK.B. Krishnamurty, Adv.
Excerpt:
civil - enforcement of security bond - sections 47, 145, 151 and order 41 rule 5 (3) (c) of code of civil procedure, 1908 - whether bond executed by judgment-debtor as surety can be proceeded in execution proceedings or separate suit has to be filed to enforce liability - section 145 applies to personal liability section 145 does not prescribe enforcement of security bond - such bond can be enforced in execution proceedings under section 151 - no separate suit necessary. - - 4. as regards the grievance of the appellant that the liability of the respondent as undertaken under the security bond should be coextensive with the amount of the decree to be passed, we do not think it is well founded......by the respondent.3. this being the correct legal position, the decree-holder could have the bond enforced by virtue of section 151 c.p.c. to that extent the order of the lower appellate court is varied.4. as regards the grievance of the appellant that the liability of the respondent as undertaken under the security bond should be coextensive with the amount of the decree to be passed, we do not think it is well founded. there can be little doubt that the respondent had undertaken the liability only to the tune of rs. 15000/- and the clause rendering himself liable to any amount that might be finally decreed should be construed as meaning not exceeding rs. 15000/-. we, therefore, cannot give effect to the contention bearing on the extent of the liability of the respondent.5. the.....
Judgment:

Chandra Reddy, C.J.

2. Although thesecurity bond as such cannot be enforced underSection 145 C. P. C., which seems to apply topersonal liability, Section 151 Civil Procedure Codecomes to the rescue of thedecree-holder who could request the court toenforce the bond in the exercise of its inherentJurisdiction, when the bond is executed in favourof the Court. There is abundant authority for this position. See Subbarao v. Venkataraiu, : AIR1964AP339 . This position is not contested by the respondent.

3. This being the correct legal position, the decree-holder could have the bond enforced by virtue of Section 151 C.P.C. To that extent the order of the lower appellate Court is varied.

4. As regards the grievance of the appellant that the liability of the respondent as undertaken under the security bond should be coextensive with the amount of the decree to be passed, we do not think it is well founded. There can be little doubt that the respondent had undertaken the liability only to the tune of Rs. 15000/- and the clause rendering himself liable to any amount that might be finally decreed should be construed as meaning not exceeding Rs. 15000/-. We, therefore, cannot give effect to the contention bearing on the extent of the liability of the respondent.

5. The order of the lower appellate Courtis modified accordingly. Parties will bear theirown costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //