High Courts(1933) 01 MAD CK 0035

Muthalakkammal vs Narappa Reddiar by mother and next friend Nagammal

Madras High Court · Decided on 6 January 1933 · Citation: AIR 1933 Mad 456 : (1933) ILR (Mad) 430 : (1933) 37 LW 414 : (1933) 64 MLJ 437

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

16 paragraphs · 359 words
1.

The decision in Arunachellam Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chettyi was in accordance with the earlier decision in Virupakshappa v. Shidappa and

Basappa ILR (1901) Bom. 109 though the latter decision was not actually cited. In the latter case, Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C. J. and Chandavarkar,

J., held that proceedings in execution are proceedings in suits and that the compromise of such a proceeding is a compromise with reference to the

suit. These decisions were followed in this Court in Shaik Davud Rowther and Others Vs. Paramasami Pillai, .

2.

In Fani v. Surendra (1921) 35 C.L.J. 9 the rules of Order 32, Seheudle 1 of the CPC which were in question were Rules 1, 3 and 11 and the

decision did not turn on the applicability of Order 32, Rule 7. The same remarks apply to Rakhal Chandra De Vs. Mt. Kumudini Debya, and

Bansi Dhar v. Md. Suleman AIR 1926 Lah. 490. In Ram Gulam Sahu v. Sham Sahai Das (1920) 5 Pat. L.J. 379 the learned Judges did not give a

final opinion as to the applicability of Order 32, Rule 7 in execution, but held that, if it did not apply, the principles of it would apply. We do not

think that the authority of Arunachellam Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chetty ILR (1905)Mad. 309, Virupakshappa v. Shidappa and Basappa ILR

(1901) Bom. 109 and Shaik Davud Rowther and Others Vs. Paramasami Pillai, is shaken by Arunachellam v. Veerappa Chettiar ILR (1931)

Mad. 17 : 61 M.L.J. 348. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to certain other Madras cases cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant as they

relate to transfer of decrees. We are therefore of opinion that Order 32, Rule 7, Seheudle I of the CPC applies to execution proceedings.

3.

The learned Advocate for the appellant now applies to us for sanction of the adjustment. The respondent opposes this on the ground that the

award and the decree on the award are collusive. The Subordinate Judge will now enquire into the question whether the adjustment is a proper

adjustment and dispose of the matter according to law.

4.

Costs will abide the result.