High CourtsSingle Bench(1909) 11 MAD CK 0003

Arapayil Pattuthi Umma vs Thacharkavil Ummi Koya

Madras High Court · Decided on 24 November 1909 · Citation: 5 Ind. Cas. 56

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sankaran Nair, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

5 paragraphs · 90 words

Sankaran Nair, J.—The Judge is wrong in holding that the plaintiff could not have executed the decree in his favour which was attached by

the defendant. See Patumma v. Idiri Beari 13 M.L.J. 265, Sami Pillai v. Krishnasami Chetti 21 M.k 417 and Adhar Chandra Dass v. Lal Mohun

Das 1 C.W.N. 676.

2.

For the loss sustained by the plaintiff, by the execution of his decree being barred by limitation, the plaintiff is responsible. The decree of the

lower Court is reversed and the suit dismissed with costs throughout.