Skip to content


Lakshamana Chetti Vs. Appala Narasimhasami and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad167
AppellantLakshamana Chetti
RespondentAppala Narasimhasami and ors.
Cases ReferredKhatoo Bibee v. Furukh Ali
Excerpt:
decree - execution--satisfaction entered up--refund decreed--application for further execution. - - 3. we are clearly of opinion that fresh proceedings may be taken. 108 but that is clearly distinguishable......by the court having entered up satisfaction in the register.3. we are clearly of opinion that fresh proceedings may be taken. it is not alleged that the application is barred by the law of limitation; so we need not take that into account. it appears to us that the money must be taken to have been paid out to, and accepted by, the decree-holder subject to any further proceedings which might be taken upon the claim which had been disallowed, and that the effect of the decision that the money was not that of the judgment-debtor has been to restore the status quo ante.4. the vakil for the decree-holder has referred us to khatoo bibee v. furukh ali 6 w.r. 108 but that is clearly distinguishable. in that case there was a decree for immoveable property and possession was delivered by a.....
Judgment:

Hutchins, J.

1. The decree-holder in this case has applied for execution in the following circumstances: Certain moneys stood in deposit in another Court which he believed to be payable to the judgment-debtor. He attached them and the sum was remitted to this Court, that of the Bimlipatam Munsif, at his request. The plaintiff in the other Court put in a claim, but it was disallowed, and the money was paid out to the decree-holder and satisfaction recorded on the decree. The plaintiff in the other Court then brought a suit, in which it was conclusively decided that the money did not belong to this judgment-debtor and was not available for the satisfaction of this decree. The money has, therefore, been refunded and the decree-holder has put in a fresh application.

2. The question referred seems to be whether further execution proceedings are barred by the Court having entered up satisfaction in the register.

3. We are clearly of opinion that fresh proceedings may be taken. It is not alleged that the application is barred by the law of limitation; so we need not take that into account. It appears to us that the money must be taken to have been paid out to, and accepted by, the decree-holder subject to any further proceedings which might be taken upon the claim which had been disallowed, and that the effect of the decision that the money was not that of the judgment-debtor has been to restore the status quo ante.

4. The vakil for the decree-holder has referred us to Khatoo Bibee v. Furukh Ali 6 W.R. 108 but that is clearly distinguishable. In that case there was a decree for immoveable property and possession was delivered by a Court Amin. Afterwards, some difficulty arose as to the identity of the land delivered with the land claimed by the same person in another suit, and he asked for another delivery. It was obvious, however, that the decree had been completely executed, and that any subsequent interference with the land would have given rise to a fresh cause of action. In this case there had been only a provisional satisfaction, contingent upon the money being the judgment-debtor's.

5. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative.


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