Skip to content


Avadai Ammal (Died) Her Legal Representative Is Sundayee Ammal Vs. Krishnan Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad772; (1928)55MLJ497
AppellantAvadai Ammal (Died) Her Legal Representative Is Sundayee Ammal
RespondentKrishnan Chetti
Cases ReferredPalaniappa Chettiar v. Valliammai Achi I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....appellant died on 16th november, 1926, and that the ruling of this court in palaniappa chettiar v. valliammai achi i.l.r. (1926) m. 1 51 m.l.j. 745 will preclude the maintainability of the appeal, and that the present petitioner's remedy is by way of a fresh execution petition. the ruling in palaniappa chettiar v. valliammai achi i.l.r. (1926) m. 1 51 m.l.j. 745 did not relate to the case of an appeal against an order in execution, and there are obvious difficulties, e.g., questions of limitation, the maintainability of successive applications, etc., which will arise if the ruling is applied to cases of appeal.2. we are not prepared to extend the application of the ruling to the present case and see no reason why the ordinary procedure relating to appeals when an appellant dies should.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Respondent contends that, as this is an appeal in a matter in execution, the appeal became incompetent when appellant died on 16th November, 1926, and that the ruling of this Court in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliammai Achi I.L.R. (1926) M. 1 51 M.L.J. 745 will preclude the maintainability of the appeal, and that the present petitioner's remedy is by way of a fresh execution petition. The ruling in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliammai Achi I.L.R. (1926) M. 1 51 M.L.J. 745 did not relate to the case of an appeal against an order in execution, and there are obvious difficulties, e.g., questions of limitation, the maintainability of successive applications, etc., which will arise if the ruling is applied to cases of appeal.

2. We are not prepared to extend the application of the ruling to the present case and see no reason why the ordinary procedure relating to appeals when an appellant dies should not apply.

3. We reject the objection. The trial Court has held that petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased appellant. We allow the petition.


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