Skip to content


Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Rao Vs. Muhammad Abdul Waheb Saheb - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad270
AppellantRajah Parthasarathi Appa Rao
RespondentMuhammad Abdul Waheb Saheb
Cases ReferredSree Rajah Bommadevara Venkata Narsimha Naidu v. Ravi Venkatappiah
Excerpt:
- - the old principle stands good that an executing court cannot go behind the decree. respondent contends, however, that the decree-holder is estopped from executing his decree against this particular property, because on some previous occasion his agent endorsed on a notice of sale that the property need not be sold as there were other claimants to it......is an appeal against the order of the court of the district judge of kistna at masulipatam (in appeal suit no. 242 of 1921) preferred against the order passed in execution petition no. 1048 of 1920 in summary suit no. 77 of 1917 on the file of the court of the deputy collector of bhimavaram.2. the appellant is decree-holder in summary suit no. 77 of 1917. a collateral high court judgment had decided that his judgment-debtor had never had possession of the property for the rent of which, the appellant has obtained a decree. accordingly the lower court held that the decree was superseded following bommadevara venkata narsimha naidu v. ravi venhatappiah (1920) 37 m.l.j. 591. that ruling has now been reversed by the privy council in bommadevara naganna naidu v. ravi venkatappiah a.i.r......
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Court of the District Judge of Kistna at Masulipatam (in Appeal Suit No. 242 of 1921) preferred against the order passed in Execution Petition No. 1048 of 1920 in Summary Suit No. 77 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the Deputy Collector of Bhimavaram.

2. The appellant is decree-holder in Summary Suit No. 77 of 1917. A collateral High Court judgment had decided that his judgment-debtor had never had possession of the property for the rent of which, the appellant has obtained a decree. Accordingly the lower Court held that the decree was superseded following Bommadevara Venkata Narsimha Naidu v. Ravi Venhatappiah (1920) 37 M.L.J. 591. That ruling has now been reversed by the Privy Council in Bommadevara Naganna Naidu v. Ravi Venkatappiah A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 167 and the respondent no longer attacks the decree on this ground. The old principle stands good that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Respondent contends, however, that the decree-holder is estopped from executing his decree against this particular property, because on some previous occasion his agent endorsed on a notice of sale that the property need not be sold as there were other claimants to it. It is difficult to so how this could amount to estoppel, and the point was not apparently pressed in other of the lower Courts. The judgment-debtor adduced no oral evidence and relied upon the ruling in Sree Rajah Bommadevara Venkata Narsimha Naidu v. Ravi Venkatappiah (1920) 37 M.L.J. 591. If persons other then the judgment-debtor have a right to the property, they have their usual remedies.

3. I find that the decree is not invalidated by the High Court judgment in Second Appeal No. 1805 of 1916 and order the Executing Court to restore it to file and proceed according to law.

4. The parties will bear their own costs.


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