Skip to content


Kailasa Pandaram Vs. Ramanuja Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918Mad1204(1); 39Ind.Cas.950
AppellantKailasa Pandaram
RespondentRamanuja Naidu and ors.
Cases ReferredVasha Kuthiyakath v. Ashi Kalakath
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 182 - step, in-aid of execution--application by person not entitled to execute, whether saves limitation. - - we, moreover, do not regard it as immaterial whether the maker of the application relied on as extending time failed to obtain recognition of his right and we respectfully dissent from vasha kuthiyakath v......have sought to support the lower appellate court's order only as based on the application of somasundaram pillai of 6th december 1905. we cannot treat the order dismissing it as one recognizing the validity of somasundaram's assignment, or in view of that order, which became final, assume that his assignment was valid. we, moreover, do not regard it as immaterial whether the maker of the application relied on as extending time failed to obtain recognition of his right and we respectfully dissent from vasha kuthiyakath v. ashi kalakath 5 ind. cas. 120, relied on by respondents. holding that the application of 6th december 1905 is pot shown to have been made by a person entitled^ to make it, we decide that the present petition is put of time.2. we, therefore, allow the appeal against.....
Judgment:

1. The respondents have sought to support the lower Appellate Court's order only as based on the application of Somasundaram Pillai of 6th December 1905. We cannot treat the order dismissing it as one recognizing the validity of Somasundaram's assignment, or in view of that order, which became final, assume that his assignment was valid. We, moreover, do not regard it as immaterial whether the maker of the application relied on as extending time failed to obtain recognition of his right and we respectfully dissent from Vasha Kuthiyakath v. Ashi Kalakath 5 Ind. Cas. 120, relied on by respondents. Holding that the application of 6th December 1905 is pot shown to have been made by a person entitled^ to make it, we decide that the present petition is put of time.

2. We, therefore, allow the appeal against appellate order and dismiss Execution Petition No. 514 of 1909 with costs throughout.


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