Skip to content


Srinivasiengar Vs. Kanthimathi Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.917
AppellantSrinivasiengar
RespondentKanthimathi Ammal and ors.
Cases ReferredKaliappan Servaikaran v. Varadarajulu
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 295 - rateable distribution--decree against sons to be satisfied out of the assets in their hands--decree against the father himself by another creditor--judgment-debtors in the two decrees not the same. - - the persons against whom the petitioner obtained his decree are the sons of one maruthamuthu pillai and the decree is to be satisfied out of the assets of the family in their hands, and the person against whom the respondent obtained her decree is maruthamuthu pillai himself......the assets of the family in their hands, and the person against whom the respondent obtained her decree is maruthamuthu pillai himself. the munsif has rightly held that the decision in govind abaji jakhadi v. mohoniraj vinayak jakhadi (sic)b. 494, covers the question and is opposed to the petitioner's contention. and it seems to me that, that ruling is in accordance with the language of section 295, civil procedure code. the fact that the two decrees are to be realised of the family property is not decisive e question against whom the decrees are and, as has been pointed in kaliappan servaikaran v. varadarajulu 19 m.l.j. 651 : 33 m. 75 : 6 m.l.t. 199 : 3 ind. cas. 737, when a decree is obtained against the legal representatives of a deceased person, the legal representatives are the.....
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The question is whether the judgment-debtors of the petitioner and the respondent are the same within the meaning of Section 295, Civil Procedure Code. The persons against whom the petitioner obtained his decree are the sons of one Maruthamuthu Pillai and the decree is to be satisfied out of the assets of the family in their hands, and the person against whom the respondent obtained her decree is Maruthamuthu Pillai himself. The Munsif has rightly held that the decision in Govind Abaji Jakhadi v. Mohoniraj Vinayak Jakhadi (sic)B. 494, covers the question and is opposed to the petitioner's contention. And it seems to me that, that ruling is in accordance with the language of Section 295, Civil Procedure Code. The fact that the two decrees are to be realised of the family property is not decisive e question against whom the decrees are And, as has been pointed in Kaliappan Servaikaran v. Varadarajulu 19 M.L.J. 651 : 33 M. 75 : 6 M.L.T. 199 : 3 Ind. Cas. 737, when a decree is obtained against the legal representatives of a deceased person, the legal representatives are the judgment-debtors and not the estate of the deceased.

2. This petition is dismissed with costs.


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