Skip to content


Muthunarayana Reddi Vs. Balakrishna Reddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR19Mad306
AppellantMuthunarayana Reddi
RespondentBalakrishna Reddi and ors.
Cases ReferredKishore Chand Bhakat v. Gisborne and Co. I.L.R.
Excerpt:
assignment of decree by one of two decree-holders valid - civil procedure code, section 232. - .....under section 232, civil procedure code. the decision in kishore chand bhakat v. gisborne and co. i.l.r. 17 cal. 341 is an authority against this contention. following that case, i hold that there is no prohibition in law against one of several decree-holders assigning his interest under the decree. whether such an assignment ought to be recognised under the section of the code referred to above and the assignee permitted to take out execution must depend upon the circumstances of each case. here, however, i see no objection to the first respondent being permitted to execute the decree according to law. the appellant was not able to show how he would have been prejudiced by the respondent being allowed to execute the decree. the order of the district judge was right. the appeal is.....
Judgment:

Subramania Ayyar, J.

1. The objection taken is that, unless all the decree-holders join in assigning the whole of the interest possessed by them under the decree, no order should be passed under Section 232, Civil Procedure Code. The decision in Kishore Chand Bhakat v. Gisborne and Co. I.L.R. 17 Cal. 341 is an authority against this contention. Following that case, I hold that there is no prohibition in law against one of several decree-holders assigning his interest under the decree. Whether such an assignment ought to be recognised under the section of the Code referred to above and the assignee permitted to take out execution must depend upon the circumstances of each case. Here, however, I see no objection to the first respondent being permitted to execute the decree according to law. The appellant was not able to show how he would have been prejudiced by the respondent being allowed to execute the decree. The order of the District Judge was right. The appeal is rejected with costs of the first respondent.


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