High CourtsDivision Bench(1916) 02 MAD CK 0010

Arasayee Ammal vs Sokkalinga Mudali

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 February 1916 · Citation: 33 Ind. Cas. 84 : (1916) 3 LW 289

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sadasiva Aiyar, J · Moore, 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

7 paragraphs · 142 words
1.

The preliminary objection that no appeal lay from the District Munsifs order must be upheld (and hence also no second appeal lies to this

Court), as a person who purchases property which is not directly mentioned in and affected by the decree is not the legal representative of the

judgment-debtor and his claim petition cannot be treated as a petition u/s 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The case of Akhoy Kumar Soor v.

Bejoy Chand Mohatap 29 C.k 813 referred to by the Subordinate Judge and the case of Ishan Chunder Sirkar v. Beni Madhub Sirkar 1 C.W.N.

36 followed in the case of Ahhoy Koomar Soor v. Bejoy Chand Mohatap 29 C. S813 were cases whore the decrees directly affected the

property sold, as they were mortgage-decrees for sale of those properties.

2.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.