Skip to content


Muthalakkammal Vs. Narappa Reddiar (Minor) by Mother and Next Friend Nagammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad456; (1933)64MLJ437
AppellantMuthalakkammal
RespondentNarappa Reddiar (Minor) by Mother and Next Friend Nagammal
Cases ReferredArunachellam v. Veerappa Chettiar I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....pat. l.j. 379 the learned judges did not give a final opinion as to the applicability of order 32, rule 7 in execution, but held that, if it did not apply, the principles of it would apply. we do not think that the authority of arunachellam chetty v. ramanadhan chetty i.l.r. (1905)mad. 309, virupakshappa v. shidappa and basappa i.l.r. (1901) bom. 109 and shaik davud rowther v. paramasmi pillai : (1916)31mlj207 is shaken by arunachellam v. veerappa chettiar i.l.r. (1931) mad. 17 : 61 m.l.j. 348. it is unnecessary to refer in detail to certain other madras cases cited by the learned advocate for the appellant as they relate to transfer of decrees. we are therefore of opinion that order 32, rule 7, seheudle i of the code of civil procedure applies to execution proceedings.3. the learned.....
Judgment:

1. The decision in Arunachellam Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chettyi was in accordance with the earlier decision in Virupakshappa v. Shidappa and Basappa I.L.R. (1901) Bom. 109 though the latter decision was not actually cited. In the latter case, Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C. J. and Chandavarkar, J., held that proceedings in execution are proceedings in suits and that the compromise of such a proceeding is a compromise with reference to the suit. These decisions were followed in this Court in Shaik Davud Rowther v. Paramasami Pillai : (1916)31MLJ207 .

2. In Fani v. Surendra (1921) 35 C.L.J. 9 the rules of Order 32, Seheudle 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which were in question were Rules 1, 3 and 11 and the decision did not turn on the applicability of Order 32, Rule 7. The same remarks apply to Rakhal Chandra De v. Mt. Kumidini Debya : AIR1927Cal930 and Bansi Dhar v. Md. Suleman A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 490. In Ram Gulam Sahu v. Sham Sahai Das (1920) 5 Pat. L.J. 379 the learned Judges did not give a final opinion as to the applicability of Order 32, Rule 7 in execution, but held that, if it did not apply, the principles of it would apply. We do not think that the authority of Arunachellam Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chetty I.L.R. (1905)Mad. 309, Virupakshappa v. Shidappa and Basappa I.L.R. (1901) Bom. 109 and Shaik Davud Rowther v. Paramasmi Pillai : (1916)31MLJ207 is shaken by Arunachellam v. Veerappa Chettiar I.L.R. (1931) Mad. 17 : 61 M.L.J. 348. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to certain other Madras cases cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant as they relate to transfer of decrees. We are therefore of opinion that Order 32, Rule 7, Seheudle I of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to execution proceedings.

3. The learned Advocate for the appellant now applies to us for sanction of the adjustment. The respondent opposes this on the ground that the award and the decree on the award are collusive. The Subordinate Judge will now enquire into the question whether the adjustment is a proper adjustment and dispose of the matter according to law.

4. Costs will abide the result.


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