Skip to content


K. Subramanya Aiyar Vs. S. Subba Iyer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.816
AppellantK. Subramanya Aiyar
RespondentS. Subba Iyer and ors.
Cases ReferredNataraja Iyer v. The South India Bank
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 1, (sic) - attachment of immovable property--debt secured by hypothecation bond, whether immovable property. - .....the attachment was made by the small cause court which, of course, had no jurisdiction to attach immoveable property under section 7 of the civil procedure code. but the question whether the debt secured by a hypothecation, bond is immoveable property for purposes of attachment, has been recently considered in nataraja iyer v. the south india bank at tinnevelly 22 m.l.j. 15 : 13 ind. cas. 91 : 10 m.l.t. 503 : 2 m.w.n. 590 and there it was decided that it was not immoveable property within the meaning of the provisions relating to the attachment of immoveable property. we see no reason to differ from that decision, and if that conclusion is right, the fact that the attachment was made by a small cause court can make no difference. we think; therefore, that the appeal must be allowed......
Judgment:

1. In this case, the question is whether the purchase of a debt secured by a hypothecation bond has passed any title to the plaintiff who is the purchaser of the property in Court auction. The attachment was made by the Small Cause Court which, of course, had no jurisdiction to attach immoveable property under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. But the question whether the debt secured by a hypothecation, bond is immoveable property for purposes of attachment, has been recently considered in Nataraja Iyer v. The South India Bank at Tinnevelly 22 M.L.J. 15 : 13 Ind. Cas. 91 : 10 M.L.T. 503 : 2 M.W.N. 590 and there it was decided that it was not immoveable property within the meaning of the provisions relating to the attachment of immoveable property. We see no reason to differ from that decision, and if that conclusion is right, the fact that the attachment was made by a Small Cause Court can make no difference. We think; therefore, that the appeal must be allowed. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is reversed and the appeal is remanded for disposal according to law. Cost will abide the result.


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