Skip to content


Doraisami Moopan Vs. Subbalakshmi Palayee Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.880
AppellantDoraisami Moopan
RespondentSubbalakshmi Palayee Ammal and ors.
Cases ReferredChettiar v. Krishna Vathiyar
Excerpt:
execution of decree - agreement that no decree should be obtained, enquiry into, legality of. - .....was an agreement which prevented a decree itself being passed in the suit, cannot be gone into in, execution.3. the former decree, however, as against the respondents nos. 4 to 7 (defendant's nos. 5 to 8) has been set aside by the decree in a fresh suit. on this ground this appeal is dismissed against them.4. as regards 3rd respondent (4th defendant) the appeal is adjourned till the disposal of the second appeal no. 101 of 1917.
Judgment:

1. The agreement in question was not to further prosecute the suit, that is, not to obtain a decree in the suit. The decision in Chidambaram, Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiyar 37 Ind. Cas. 836: 5 L.W. 132 does not apply, as the agreement before decree in that case was to the effect that a decree was to be passed but the decree so obtained was not to be executed.

2. The question, whether there was an agreement which prevented a decree itself being passed in the suit, cannot be gone into in, execution.

3. The former decree, however, as against the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 (defendant's Nos. 5 to 8) has been set aside by the decree in a fresh suit. On this ground this appeal is dismissed against them.

4. As regards 3rd respondent (4th defendant) the appeal is adjourned till the disposal of the Second Appeal No. 101 of 1917.


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