High CourtsDivision Bench(1901) 12 MAD CK 0005

Appa Rao and Another vs Krishna Ayyangar and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 December 1901 · Citation: (1902) ILR (Mad) 537

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J · Benson, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 193 words
1.

The order of the District Judge cannot be sustained. He is in error in holding that an account of the profits of the land should now be taken for

the purpose of being set off against the amount decreed. This is going behind the decree instead of executing it as it stands. The District Judge is

also wrong in holding that the present application cannot be granted in the absence of a prior order absolute for sale. It is stated by the appellant

that such an order for sale was passed on the 13th December 1897, but whether that is so or not, the present application, in which the decree-

holder states that there has been default in payment of the decree amount and applies for sale, is in our opinion an application for an order absolute

for sale.

2.

The respondent raises before us several objections by way of limitation and otherwise, to the grant of the application, but these are not matters

which we need decide at this stage.

3.

We allow the second appeal, with costs, and remand the appeal to the District Judge for disposal according to law.