Skip to content


Munisami Reddi Vs. Arunachala Reddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad265
AppellantMunisami Reddi
RespondentArunachala Reddi and ors.
Cases ReferredChundra Bhusan Gangopadhya v. Ram Kanth Banerji I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, schedule ii, article 11--civil procedure code--act xiv of 1882, sections 278, 281--disallowance of claim to property under attachment--subsequent suit. - - when a claim is preferred under section 278 and duly prosecuted, it is incumbent on the court after investigation of the facts to satisfy itself either that the facts are as stated in section 280 or as stated in section 281. without being satisfied either way, no order can properly be passed.1. the question is whether there was any order under section 281 of the code. when a claim is preferred under section 278 and duly prosecuted, it is incumbent on the court after investigation of the facts to satisfy itself either that the facts are as stated in section 280 or as stated in section 281. without being satisfied either way, no order can properly be passed. chundra bhusan gangopadhya v. ram kanth banerji i.l.r. 12 cal. 108 in this case the claim was practically withdrawn and there was no investigation.2. there being no order within the meaning of section 281, the one year's rule does not apply.3. we reverse the decree and remand the suit for trial by the district munsif. the respondents must pay costs of this appeal, other costs to be provided for in the revised decree.
Judgment:

1. The question is whether there was any order under Section 281 of the Code. When a claim is preferred under Section 278 and duly prosecuted, it is incumbent on the Court after investigation of the facts to satisfy itself either that the facts are as stated in Section 280 or as stated in Section 281. Without being satisfied either way, no order can properly be passed. Chundra Bhusan Gangopadhya v. Ram Kanth Banerji I.L.R. 12 Cal. 108 In this case the claim was practically withdrawn and there was no investigation.

2. There being no order within the meaning of Section 281, the one year's rule does not apply.

3. We reverse the decree and remand the suit for trial by the District Munsif. The respondents must pay costs of this appeal, other costs to be provided for in the revised decree.


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