Skip to content


(Thakoor) Ramachander Lalji (Firm) and ors. Vs. M. Narasimhalu Chetty and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad888
Appellant(Thakoor) Ramachander Lalji (Firm) and ors.
RespondentM. Narasimhalu Chetty and Co.
Cases ReferredSudalaimuthu v. Sudalaimuthu
Excerpt:
- .....be that the money wrongfully paid to the respondents by the petitioners must be refunded with interest at 6 per cent per annum from date of collection, viz., 21st january 1928, till date of restitution. petitioners will be allowed costs of this petition.
Judgment:

Walsh, J.

1. I see no reason why the Court should refuse restitution. The decree was admittedly a nullity, the suit having been instituted against a dead man. The Civil Procedure Rules are not applicable against dead persons as remarked in Debi Baksh Singh v. Habib Shah (1913)35 All 331. The Court having levied execution when there was no decree has inherent power to rectify its own mistake under Section 151, Civil P.C.: vide also remarks in Sudalaimuthu v. Sudalaimuthu : AIR1925Mad365 . I do not propose to go into the academic question whether the petitioners can get a decree which is a nullity set aside or not because the only real question is whether he can get restitution of money paid in execution of what was not a decree. I have no doubt that he can. The order will be that the money wrongfully paid to the respondents by the petitioners must be refunded with interest at 6 per cent per annum from date of collection, viz., 21st January 1928, till date of restitution. Petitioners will be allowed costs of this petition.


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