Skip to content


Pulipaty Subbayya Vs. Kandi Subbareddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in101Ind.Cas.591
AppellantPulipaty Subbayya
RespondentKandi Subbareddi and ors.
Cases ReferredKunhi Moossa v. Makki
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), s.64 - attachment--partial release by consent without order of court, legality of--sale by consent of decree-holder, whether void. - .....by the agreement ex. b. nothing is said about it and if there were, it would need an application to, and an order of, the court, next the argument as to section 64 of the code of civil procedure. no authority has been shown to me against the view taken by the learned district judge. the section appears to me to be absolute. if a sale by consent or with connivance of the decree-holder were to be excepted the section would, no doubt, have said so.2. the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Odgers, J.

1. It is contended that there can be a partial raising of an attachment by consent of parties outside the Court, This cannot be so; Court must raise the attachment unless it becomes inoperative by the payment of the decree [vide, Kunhi Moossa v. Makki 23 M. 478 : 10 M.L.J. 98 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.)]. There is no force in the plea that the attachment was raised by the agreement Ex. B. Nothing is said about it and if there were, it would need an application to, and an order of, the Court, Next the argument as to Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No authority has been shown to me against the view taken by the learned District Judge. The section appears to me to be absolute. If a sale by consent or with connivance of the decree-holder were to be excepted the section would, no doubt, have said so.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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