Skip to content


A. Ghulam MuhiuddIn Rowther Vs. Sulaiman Rowther and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad263
AppellantA. Ghulam MuhiuddIn Rowther
RespondentSulaiman Rowther and anr.
Cases Referred and Husenuddin Nuruddin v. Dulakshidas
Excerpt:
- 1. this is a question under order 21, rule 89, civil p.c. the short point is whether an amount which has been deposited in court can be said to have been received within the meaning of order 21, rule 89(1)(b). it is argued for the respondents that 'received' means 'virtually received' or constructively received and that actual receipt is not necessary. we cannot accede to this argument. received' means what it says, that is, received free from qualifying adverbs. we agree with the view taken in trimbak narayan v. ramchandra narsingrao (1899) 23 bom. 723 and husenuddin nuruddin v. dulakshidas air 1923 bom 299, which are cases in point, and accordingly allow this appeal with costs throughout.
Judgment:

1. This is a question under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. The short point is whether an amount which has been deposited in Court can be said to have been received within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 89(1)(b). It is argued for the respondents that 'received' means 'virtually received' or constructively received and that actual receipt is not necessary. We cannot accede to this argument. Received' means what it says, that is, received free from qualifying adverbs. We agree with the view taken in Trimbak Narayan v. Ramchandra Narsingrao (1899) 23 Bom. 723 and Husenuddin Nuruddin v. Dulakshidas AIR 1923 Bom 299, which are cases in point, and accordingly allow this appeal with costs throughout.


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