Skip to content


Puthenpurayil Kumdipravam Kanara Kurup. Vs. Puthenpurayil Kumdipravam Govinda Kurp. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1896)6MLJ769
AppellantPuthenpurayil Kumdipravam Kanara Kurup.
RespondentPuthenpurayil Kumdipravam Govinda Kurp.
Cases ReferredAppellate Court. See Potlogi v. Ganu I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....be dismissed with costs.note--ses also letters patent appeal 30 of 1890 in which muthusami aiyar and parker, jj., held that even where the appeal is decided on the merits where the appeal does not extend the time for redemption, the decree-holder is bound to redeem within the. time fixed from the date of the original decree.
Judgment:

Parker, J.

1. It appears to me thai plaintiff's application to execute the decree is barred.

2. The decree was dated March 16th, 1889, and directed redemption on the kanom amount being paid within six months. The defendant appealed, but the appeal was withdrawn on 21st August 1889. Application for execution was not made till February 6th, 1890.

3. No decree having been passed on appeal, there is no possible ground for the contention that time should be reckoned from the date of the final order of the Appellate Court. See Potlogi v. Ganu I.L.R. (1890) B 370. The fact that the mortgage is usufructuary does not matter. The question is one in execution.

4. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

NOTE--Ses also Letters Patent Appeal 30 of 1890 in which Muthusami Aiyar and Parker, JJ., held that even where the appeal is decided on the merits where the appeal does not extend the time for redemption, the decree-holder is bound to redeem within the. time fixed from the date of the original decree.


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