Skip to content


Thangavelu Mudaliar Vs. Mahomed Ibrahim Sahib - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in34Ind.Cas.759
AppellantThangavelu Mudaliar
RespondentMahomed Ibrahim Sahib
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1903), section 47 - money--decree against same judgment-debtor in two suits by two separate creditors--judgment-debtor's property sold in execution of one decree--subsequent attachment of same property in other decree--objection-purchaser, whether legal representative of judgment--debtor--appeal--second appeal. - .....purchaser in execution of a money-decree passed in one suit (which might be called suit x) between decree-holder a and judgment-debtor b is not the representative of the judgment-debtor b in suit y when he prefers a claim petition when the properties are or have been attached in execution of the money-decree passed in suit y between decree-holder a and the judgment-debtor b, though the judgment-debtors are the same in both suits. he (the purchaser) cannot, therefore, take advantage of the provisions of section 47. civil procedure code, and claim a right to prefer an appeal and a second appeal against the decision in the claim petition in the y suit. [see observations in nadamuni narayana lyengar v. veerabhadra pillai 8 ind. cas. 429 as to under what particular circumstances a court.....
Judgment:

1. The purchaser in execution of a money-decree passed in one suit (which might be called suit X) between decree-holder A and judgment-debtor B is not the representative of the judgment-debtor B in suit Y when he prefers a claim petition when the properties are or have been attached in execution of the money-decree passed in suit Y between decree-holder A and the judgment-debtor B, though the judgment-debtors are the same in both suits. He (the purchaser) cannot, therefore, take advantage of the provisions of Section 47. Civil Procedure Code, and claim a right to prefer an appeal and a second appeal against the decision in the claim petition in the Y suit. [See observations in Nadamuni Narayana lyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai 8 Ind. Cas. 429 as to under what particular circumstances a Court auction-purchaser can be treated as representative of the decree-holder or judgment-debtor and as to what proceedings can be considered as falling under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, though a Court auction purchaser who cannot be considered the representative of either the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor is interested in the result of and is, therefore, made a party to the proceedings.]

2. The lower Appellate Court's view that no appeal lay to it is correct and we dismiss this second appeal with costs.


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