Skip to content


Srinivasa Sastri Vs. Jagathguru Sri Sankarachariar Swamigal at Kumbakonam and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Mad726
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 39 and 48 - Order 21, Rule 10
AppellantSrinivasa Sastri
RespondentJagathguru Sri Sankarachariar Swamigal at Kumbakonam and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.V. Ramanarasu and ;K. Raman, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateP.C. Parthasarathy Iyengar, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred(A) and Manickam v. Ra
Excerpt:
- .....raman, lor the appellant, contended that the later ruling of a bench of this court in aru-oachalam lyer v, k, n. liugiah : air1953mad71 sounds a different note tond that it would support his case. we do not agree with him. in : air1953mad71 , the application for execution was filed in the transferee court on the 12th july 1946, no doubt before the order of transmission was made; but (he actual order of transmission was made on 13th july 1946, within 12 years from the date of the decree. in the present case, however, the order of transfer was made only on 29th october 1948, after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the decree. we see nothing inconsistent between ilr 56 mad 692: air 1933 mad 627 (a) and : air1953mad71 (c). no authority has been brought to our notice which lays down.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. The view taken by Raghava Rao, J., in the Judgment under appeal is supported by the rulings in Modali Ademma v. Venkata Subbayya, ILR 56 Mad 602: AIR 1933 Mad 627 (A) and Manickam v. Ra-niaswami : AIR1945Mad70 . Mr. Raman, lor the appellant, contended that the later ruling of a Bench of this Court in Aru-oachalam lyer v, K, N. Liugiah : AIR1953Mad71 sounds a different note tond that it would support his case. We do not agree With him. In : AIR1953Mad71 , the application for execution was filed in the transferee Court on the 12th July 1946, no doubt before the order of transmission was made; but (he actual order of transmission was made on 13th July 1946, within 12 years from the date of the decree. In the present case, however, the order of transfer was made only on 29th October 1948, after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the decree. We see nothing inconsistent between ILR 56 Mad 692: AIR 1933 Mad 627 (A) and : AIR1953Mad71 (C). No authority has been brought to our notice which lays down that even when the order of transmission is passed after the expiry of 12 years, nevertheless an execution petition which happened to be filed within 12 years in the transferee Court but before the order of transfer is made would save the decree-holder from the bar of Section 48, C. P. Code. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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