Skip to content


Raman Vs. Muppil Nayar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1891)ILR14Mad478
AppellantRaman
RespondentMuppil Nayar and ors.
Cases ReferredSambasiva v. Srinivasa I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 244 - execution of decree--assignee of decree--regular suit. - 1. as the plaintiff has never been brought on the record as decree-holder in suit no 247 of 1885, it is clear that the provisions of section 244 of the code of civil procedure cannot apply to him, halodhar shaha v. harogobind das roiburto i.l.r. 12 cal. 105. there was no appeal against the order refusing him leave to execute if he had not been brought on the record as transferee plaintiff, sambasiva v. srinivasa i.l.r. 12 mad. 511.2. the decree of the district judge must be reversed and the appeal remanded to be heard on the merits. the appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal, and the costs in the lower appellate court will abide and follow the result.
Judgment:

1. As the plaintiff has never been brought on the record as decree-holder in Suit No 247 of 1885, it is clear that the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot apply to him, Halodhar Shaha v. Harogobind Das Roiburto I.L.R. 12 Cal. 105. There was no appeal against the order refusing him leave to execute if he had not been brought on the record as transferee plaintiff, Sambasiva v. Srinivasa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 511.

2. The decree of the District Judge must be reversed and the appeal remanded to be heard on the merits. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal, and the costs in the lower Appellate Court will abide and follow the result.


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