Skip to content


Lakshmana Pattar Vs. Suppayya Pandaram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad264
AppellantLakshmana Pattar
RespondentSuppayya Pandaram and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....of the date of maintenance coming due, viz., 5th april 1918.2. an application to recognize an unregistered assignment of an interest in immovable property is not an application in accordance with law inasmuch as the executing court is not competent to act upon an invalid transfer.3. the district munsif was right upon this point. but if the unregistered assignment created no rights in the transferee to execute the decree against property, the interest must have remained in the transferrer and the joint application of the decree-holder and the assignee made on 18th october 1919 in execution petition no. 1575 of 1919 to proclaim and sell the immovable property charged by the decree was in time and was also a valid step in aid of execution which, though the application was dismissed,.....
Judgment:

Spencer, J.

1. The learned District Judge apparently overlooked the fact, assuming there could be a valid assignment of a personal relief against the judgment-debtor and that Execution Petition. No. 507 of 1921 was a legal step in execution it could not save limitation for Execution Petition No. 192 of 1922 seeing that it was not taken within three years of the date of maintenance coming due, viz., 5th April 1918.

2. An application to recognize an unregistered assignment of an interest in immovable property is not an application in accordance with law inasmuch as the executing Court is not competent to act upon an invalid transfer.

3. The District Munsif was right upon this point. But if the unregistered assignment created no rights in the transferee to execute the decree against property, the interest must have remained in the transferrer and the joint application of the decree-holder and the assignee made on 18th October 1919 in Execution Petition No. 1575 of 1919 to proclaim and sell the immovable property charged by the decree was in time and was also a valid step in aid of execution which, though the application was dismissed, can be availed of by the first respondent who has now got a valid registered assignment Exhibit A, dated 7th October 1920 from the original assignee, Arumuga Pandaram who got a second assignment, Exhibit B, dated 2nd November 1919 from the decree-holder, which was registered in place of the unregistered deed of assignment, dated 5th April 1918.

4. In this view the application for execution was not time barred, The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.


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