Skip to content


(Adivi) Krishnayya Vs. (Thummalapally) Sriramulu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad142
Appellant(Adivi) Krishnayya
Respondent(Thummalapally) Sriramulu and ors.
Excerpt:
- - , is bad as it has not been registered......that, if an execution application is not stamped, it becomes necessarily invalid. further in this case action was taken on this application and properties were attached but no objection seems to have been taken by the appellant at that time. we hold, therefore, that the execution petition dated 10th august 1923 was not barred by limitation.2. there is no substance in the second argument also. there was a personal decree all along against defendant 1 (the present appellant). it is conceded that the assignment of personal decree does not require registration. the fact that in the same decree there was also a mortgage decree against defendant 2 does not make it necessary to pass again a personal decree against defendant 1 after the sale of all the mortgaged properties, however necessary it.....
Judgment:

1. Two arguments have been urged before us (1) that the execution petition dated 3rd September 1920 is not a proper execution petition as it was not stamped at the time of presentation and, therefore, the petition dated 10th August 1923 is barred by limitation; (2) that the assignment application under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C., is bad as it has not been registered. Both these arguments must be overruled. As regards the first, it has not been shown that, if an execution application is not stamped, it becomes necessarily invalid. Further in this case action was taken on this application and properties were attached but no objection seems to have been taken by the appellant at that time. We hold, therefore, that the execution petition dated 10th August 1923 was not barred by limitation.

2. There is no substance in the second argument also. There was a personal decree all along against defendant 1 (the present appellant). It is conceded that the assignment of personal decree does not require registration. The fact that in the same decree there was also a mortgage decree against defendant 2 does not make it necessary to pass again a personal decree against defendant 1 after the sale of all the mortgaged properties, however necessary it may be to pass such a decree against defendant 2. In these circumstances we dismiss this civil miscellaneous appeal with costs.


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