Skip to content


Jambagathammal Vs. Kanakathammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Mad355(2); 25Ind.Cas.645
AppellantJambagathammal
RespondentKanakathammal and ors.
Cases Referred and Keshobati Kumari v. MacGregor
Excerpt:
receiver - discretion to spend money on litigation--appellate court, interference by--security for restitution--civil procedure. code (act v of 1908), order xl, rule 1(d)--appeal. - .....shall give security for restitution to the estate of such expenses in certain events.2. we, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs without deciding the rather difficult question whether an appeal really lies from the order of the subordinate court, that is, whether' the order really falls under order xl, rule 1 (d), of the civil procedure code. see kamalathammal v. srinivasachariar 14 ind. cas. 277 : 11 m.l.t. 383 : mohunt anant das v. ram perhash das 5 ind. cas. 69 : 14 c.w.n. 183; civil revision petition no. 555 of 1912; eastern mortgage agency co. ltd. v. fakurud-din mahomed chowdhury 17 ind. cas. 849 : 17 c.w.n. 1 and keshobati kumari v. macgregor 35 c. 568 : 12 c.w.n. 648 .
Judgment:

1. We do not see sufficient reason to interfere with the discretion of the lower Court in refusing to direct the Receiver not to spend money for the conduct of the defence of the minor 2nd defendant, especially as the learned Subordinate Judge has directed the Receiver to obtain the orders of the Court before actually disbursing amount or incurring the expenditure.' We take it that, if necessary or desirable, the lower Court will pass orders that the Receiver shall give security for restitution to the estate of such expenses in certain events.

2. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs without deciding the rather difficult question whether an appeal really lies from the order of the Subordinate Court, that is, whether' the order really falls under Order XL, Rule 1 (d), of the Civil Procedure Code. See Kamalathammal v. Srinivasachariar 14 Ind. Cas. 277 : 11 M.L.T. 383 : Mohunt Anant Das v. Ram Perhash Das 5 Ind. Cas. 69 : 14 C.W.N. 183; Civil Revision Petition No. 555 of 1912; Eastern Mortgage Agency Co. Ltd. v. Fakurud-din Mahomed Chowdhury 17 Ind. Cas. 849 : 17 C.W.N. 1 and Keshobati Kumari v. MacGregor 35 C. 568 : 12 C.W.N. 648 .


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