Skip to content


Nathuram Siviji Sett Vs. Kutti Haji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad446
AppellantNathuram Siviji Sett
RespondentKutti Haji
Cases ReferredJanaki v. Dhanu Lall I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, 1882, section 252 - legal representative--suit against the heir and possessor of the assets of a deceased person. - .....only as legal representative of the deceased. he was in fact sued as the heir and possessor of the assets of the deceased. it having been proved in the suit that the defendant had received sufficient assets to meet the plaint debt, the court of first instance was justified in passing a personal decree against him in the suit for that debt, and it was not necessary to wait for execution proceedings to determine the extent of the defendant's personal liability as contemplated in section 252 of the code of civil procedure. the ease of magaluri garudiah v. narayana rungiah i.l.r. 3 mad. 359 is in point rather than the case of janaki v. dhanu lall i.l.r. 14 mad. 454 quoted by the judge. we must, therefore, reverse the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the district.....
Judgment:

1. The Judge is in error in stating that the defendant was sued only as legal representative of the deceased. He was in fact sued as the heir and possessor of the assets of the deceased. It having been proved in the suit that the defendant had received sufficient assets to meet the plaint debt, the Court of First Instance was justified in passing a personal decree against him in the suit for that debt, and it was not necessary to wait for execution proceedings to determine the extent of the defendant's personal liability as contemplated in Section 252 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ease of Magaluri Garudiah v. Narayana Rungiah I.L.R. 3 Mad. 359 is in point rather than the case of Janaki v. Dhanu Lall I.L.R. 14 Mad. 454 quoted by the Judge. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif. The defendant (respondent) must pay the plaintiff's costs in this and the lower Appellate Court. This disposes of the memorandum of objections which is simply dismissed.


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