Skip to content


The Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, Through Its Agent T.A.R.T. Arunachalam Chetty Vs. K.P. Velliappa Chetty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Family
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1915Mad748(1); (1914)27MLJ654
AppellantThe Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, Through Its Agent T.A.R.T. Arunachalam Chetty
RespondentK.P. Velliappa Chetty and ors.
Cases ReferredChidambaram Chetty v. Ramasami Chetty
Excerpt:
- .....property in pullateen must be proved to be the assets of the rangoon firm which is not different from the family firm known as k. p. firm, it being only a branch of the k. p. firm), we follow the rulings in chidambaram chetty v. ramasami chetty : air1915mad506(2) . and that 'in the case of nattukottai chetties, their family property should be treated as trade assets' and that no distinction should be made between the family property and the trade assets.3. the subordinate judge's order is set aside and the petition no. 892 of 1913 in execution application no. 95 of 1913 will stand dismissed with costs in this and in the lower court, the attachment order being revived.4. the execution proceedings are transferred to the file of the temporary subordinate judge of sivaganga.
Judgment:

1. The Subordinate Judge's order cannot be supported. Rule 50 of the Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure relied on by the Subordinate Judge has no application as no property of the minor defendants not involved in the family trade was sought to be attached or sold.

2. As regards the contention (accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge) that the family property in Pullateen must be proved to be the assets of the Rangoon Firm which is not different from the family firm known as K. P. Firm, it being only a branch of the K. P. Firm), we follow the rulings in Chidambaram Chetty v. Ramasami Chetty : AIR1915Mad506(2) . and that 'in the case of Nattukottai Chetties, their family property should be treated as trade assets' and that no distinction should be made between the family property and the trade assets.

3. The Subordinate Judge's order is set aside and the Petition No. 892 of 1913 in Execution Application No. 95 of 1913 will stand dismissed with costs in this and in the Lower Court, the attachment order being revived.

4. The execution proceedings are transferred to the file of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga.


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