Skip to content


Subbavarapu Gangunaidu Vs. Murru Muttenna and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Mad664
AppellantSubbavarapu Gangunaidu
RespondentMurru Muttenna and ors.
Cases ReferredRajah of Kalahasti v. Jagannadha Rayanimgar
Excerpt:
- .....1927 and on 29th february 1928 the appellant applied to have respondents 1 and 3 brought on as his legal representatives. it is now found that gangi mutyalamma is the proper representative, as appellant might have known, for he is defendant 4 in o.s. no. 167 of 1927 where she was brought on as legal; representative, and there is no reason to suppose that the present appellant was ignorant of that suit. therefore after the time for bringing on legal representatives had expired the appellant deliberately attempted to bring on the wrong legal representatives. in these circumstances, the learned district judge, brushing aside a suggestion that a regular appeal was in execution proceeding to which article 177, lim. act, does not apply, ruled that the appeal had abated, and it cannot be said.....
Judgment:

1. In A.S. No. 433 of 1927 en the file of the District Judge, Vizagapatam, respondent 2 died in September 1927 and on 29th February 1928 the appellant applied to have respondents 1 and 3 brought on as his legal representatives. It is now found that Gangi Mutyalamma is the proper representative, as appellant might have known, for he is defendant 4 in O.S. No. 167 of 1927 where she was brought on as legal; representative, and there is no reason to suppose that the present appellant was ignorant of that suit. Therefore after the time for bringing on legal representatives had expired the appellant deliberately attempted to bring on the wrong legal representatives. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge, brushing aside a suggestion that a regular appeal was in execution proceeding to which Article 177, Lim. Act, does not apply, ruled that the appeal had abated, and it cannot be said that he is wrong. His view of the law has since been affirmed by Rajah of Kalahasti v. Jagannadha Rayanimgar 1932 Mad. 574. The appellant confines himself to a plea that he was ignorant of the law, and was not aware that his appeal in execution proceedings could abate; but this is entirely an after-thought. In February 1928 her applied to bring on legal representatives as though he comprehended the correct law; and it would be a curious presumption that a party who has attempted to comply with the law was ignorant of law. The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.


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