Skip to content


Srimanth Rajah Yarlagadda Mallikharjuna Prasada Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Matlapalli Virayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in47Ind.Cas.1000; (1918)35MLJ231
AppellantSrimanth Rajah Yarlagadda Mallikharjuna Prasada Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu
RespondentMatlapalli Virayya and ors.
Cases ReferredRamanamma v. Bathula Kamaraju
Excerpt:
- .....to the last sentence of section 246, the language was altered but there was nothing in the alteration from which an intention to make any of these provisions inapplicable to attachments before judgment could be inferred, nor is there anything of the sort in the changes made in the code of 1908. the general policy of the law is that questions of title raised by claims against attachments before or after judgment should be promptly disposed of, and, as has been pointed out to us, this section was applied without question to a case of attachment before judgment which came before the privy council in kissorimohun roy v. harsukh das i.l.r. (1889) cal. 136.2. we must overrule ramanamma v. bathula kamaraju (1917) 5 law weekly 704. reported in i.l.r. 11 m. 23 and answer the question in.....
Judgment:

1. Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1859, which was re-enacted without material alteration in Section 487 of the Code of 1877 and in Order XXXVIII, Rule 8 of the present Code, admittedly had the effect of applying to claims in respect of attachments before judgment all the provisions of Section 246 of that Code including the final provision enabling the party against whom the order was given to bring a suit to establish his right at any time within one year from the date of the order. By the Indian Limitation Act IX of 1871 the provision as to limitation was taken out of Section 246 and dealt with in Article 15 of that Act. In the Code of 1877, Sections 278 to 283 were substituted for Section 246 of the Code of 1859. In Section 283 which corresponds to the last sentence of Section 246, the language was altered but there was nothing in the alteration from which an intention to make any of these provisions inapplicable to attachments before judgment could be inferred, nor is there anything of the sort in the changes made in the Code of 1908. The general policy of the law is that questions of title raised by claims against attachments before or after judgment should be promptly disposed of, and, as has been pointed out to us, this section was applied without question to a case of attachment before judgment which came before the Privy Council in Kissorimohun Roy v. Harsukh Das I.L.R. (1889) Cal. 136.

2. We must overrule Ramanamma v. Bathula Kamaraju (1917) 5 Law Weekly 704. reported in I.L.R. 11 M. 23 and answer the question in the affirmative.


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