Skip to content


Paramasiva Tevan Vs. Krishna Aiyangar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1896)6MLJ776
AppellantParamasiva Tevan
RespondentKrishna Aiyangar
Excerpt:
- - 1. as to the point that plaintiff's purchase being on behalf of the judgment-creditor was invalid being made without the permission of the court, the last clause of section 294 of the code of civil procedure, act x of 1877, in force at the time of the purchase, as amended by act xii of 1879, stood as in the corresponding section of the present code and clearly negatives in our opinion the view that not obtaining the permission of the court invalidates the purchase, and this opinion is in accordance with the decisions referred to by the district judge......the last clause of section 294 of the code of civil procedure, act x of 1877, in force at the time of the purchase, as amended by act xii of 1879, stood as in the corresponding section of the present code and clearly negatives in our opinion the view that not obtaining the permission of the court invalidates the purchase, and this opinion is in accordance with the decisions referred to by the district judge.2. the objection that vedanta aiyangar's heirs were not made parties to the suit was we think rightly disallowed by the district judge as taken too late.3. it is urged that appellant is entitled to compensation for improver ments. the district munsif. disallowed the claim and though it way made a ground of appeal to the district court it does not appear to have been urged in that.....
Judgment:

1. As to the point that plaintiff's purchase being on behalf of the judgment-creditor was invalid being made without the permission of the court, the last clause of Section 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act X of 1877, in force at the time of the purchase, as amended by Act XII of 1879, stood as in the corresponding section of the present code and clearly negatives in our opinion the view that not obtaining the permission of the court invalidates the purchase, and this opinion is in accordance with the decisions referred to by the District Judge.

2. The objection that Vedanta Aiyangar's heirs were not made parties to the suit was we think rightly disallowed by the District Judge as taken too late.

3. It is urged that appellant is entitled to compensation for improver ments. The District Munsif. disallowed the claim and though it way made a ground of appeal to the District Court it does not appear to have been urged in that court, nor do we sea any legal foundation for the claim.

4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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