Skip to content


Mannem Seshadri Reddi Vs. Putta Venkata Reddy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Mad709; 76Ind.Cas.809
AppellantMannem Seshadri Reddi
RespondentPutta Venkata Reddy
Cases ReferredSitatamaswamy v. Dulla Lakshmi Narasamma
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 146, order xxii, rule 10 - 'claiming under,' meaning of--transferee of property concerned in decree, whether can execute decree. - .....the words 'claiming under' in that section are wide enough to cover even cases of devolution mentioned in order xxii, rule 10.2. it is urged that, here, the respondent-petitioner is a transferee of property concerned in the decree which be desires to execute, not of that decree itself. we do not think the distinction substantial. for we cannot understand how one person can be claiming under another in respect of property, when he does not claim under hint equally in respect of the decree dealing with the property. taking this view, we dismiss the appeal against appellate order with costs.
Judgment:

1. We think the lower Appellate Court's order can be justified by reference to Section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code. In accordance with the dictum of Sesbagiri Iyer, J., in Sitatamaswamy v. Dulla Lakshmi Narasamma 48 Ind. Cas. 840 : 41 M. 500 : 8 L.W. 21 the words 'claiming under' in that section are wide enough to cover even cases of devolution mentioned in Order XXII, Rule 10.

2. It is urged that, here, the respondent-petitioner is a transferee of property concerned in the decree which be desires to execute, not of that decree itself. We do not think the distinction substantial. For we cannot understand how one person can be claiming under another in respect of property, when he does not claim under hint equally in respect of the decree dealing with the property. Taking this view, we dismiss the appeal against appellate order with costs.


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