Skip to content


Lingam Veeraraghava Row and anr. Vs. Mallapragada Gurunadha Row - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in30Ind.Cas.246
AppellantLingam Veeraraghava Row and anr.
RespondentMallapragada Gurunadha Row
Cases ReferredHari Charan Ghosh v. Manmatha Nath Sen
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 141, order ii, rule 2, order xx, rule 12 - execution--decree for possession and mesne profits--separate execution for possession and mesne profits, if allowable. - 1. we follow balasubramania chetti v. swarnammal 21 ind. cas. 32 : 25 m.l.j. 367 with the reasoning in which we respectfully concur, in preference to safdar ali v. kishun lal 7 ind. cas. 241. the decision in the latter, moreover, appears to be irreconcilable with that of hari charan ghosh v. manmatha nath sen 18 c.w.n. 343. the fact, therefore, that petitioner applied for execution in 1911 without making his present claim for mesne profits is not material. the appeal against order is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. We follow Balasubramania Chetti v. Swarnammal 21 Ind. Cas. 32 : 25 M.L.J. 367 with the reasoning in which we respectfully concur, in preference to Safdar Ali v. Kishun Lal 7 Ind. Cas. 241. The decision in the latter, moreover, appears to be irreconcilable with that of Hari Charan Ghosh v. Manmatha Nath Sen 18 C.W.N. 343. The fact, therefore, that petitioner applied for execution in 1911 without making his present claim for mesne profits is not material. The appeal against order is dismissed with costs.


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