Skip to content


Velu Manikaran Vs. Pakarvoor Manakal Jatavedan Nambudirapad's L.R. Narayanan Somayajipad and Anr. (21.01.1910 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.289
AppellantVelu Manikaran
RespondentPakarvoor Manakal Jatavedan Nambudirapad's L.R. Narayanan Somayajipad and Anr.
Cases ReferredVenkatachellam Chetty v. Veerappa Pillai
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 260, applicability of - decree restraining defendant from taking water--breach. - - the terms of the first clause of this section clearly refer to cases where a party is restrained from doing an act, and the operation of that clause is not limited to the cases contemplated by the second clause......terms of the decree. the terms of the first clause of this section clearly refer to cases where a party is restrained from doing an act, and the operation of that clause is not limited to the cases contemplated by the second clause.4. that the matter is one arising in the execution of a decree there can be no doubt that the section refers to cases where a party is directed to carry out something is conceded. no reason is suggested why those cases when a party is directed to abstain from, doing an act should be placed on a different footing and. the words of the clause are wide enough to include such cases, and we, therefore, hold that section 260 applies to the present case. the same view was taken in venkatachellam chetty v. veerappa pillai 29 m. 314, the question whether the plaintiff.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant was restrained by a decree from taking wat6r which the respondents carry through a thodu. He has now put up a dam and carried the water to his fields against the terms of the decree with the result that the 1st respondent has sustained damages estimated at about Rs. 300 by the lower Court. Under Section 260 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant's property has been ordered to be placed under attachment for the satisfaction of this amount. It is conceded that if Section 260 applies, this appeal fails, but it is contended that the section does not apply, as the second Clause shows that it contemplates only cases where the judgment-debtor may carry out the terms of the decree within the period of one year the property is to remain under attachment before it is sold, and does not, therefore, apply to this and similar cases where the judgment-debtor is restrained from doing an act, and he has already violated the terms of the decree.

3. We are unable to agree with this contention. In the present case he continues to violate the terms of the decree. The terms of the first Clause of this section clearly refer to cases where a party is restrained from doing an act, and the operation of that Clause is not limited to the cases contemplated by the second clause.

4. That the matter is one arising in the execution of a decree there can be no doubt That the section refers to cases where a party is directed to carry out something is conceded. No reason is suggested why those cases when a party is directed to abstain from, doing an act should be placed on a different footing and. the words of the Clause are wide enough to include such cases, and we, therefore, hold that Section 260 applies to the present case. The same view was taken in Venkatachellam Chetty v. Veerappa Pillai 29 M. 314, The question whether the plaintiff is an assignee has already been decided by this Court.

5. The objection that the representatives of a deceased decree-holder are not parties; was not raised in the Court of first instance. The appeal is dismissed with costs


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