High CourtsDivision Bench(1922) 11 MAD CK 0025

Rukmani Ammal vs Ramachandra Thondaman Sahib and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 14 November 1922 · Citation: (1923) 17 LW 67 : (1923) 44 MLJ 122

HON’BLE JUDGES
Krishnan, 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

15 paragraphs · 346 words

Krishnan, J.—This was an application by the petitioner as the person beneficially entitled to the fruits of the decree in O.S. No. 293 of 1899

on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Trichinopoly which had been obtained by one Krishnaswami Iyengar to be made a party to the

appeal against the order of the District Munsif removing the obstruction of the respondent Ramachandra Thondaman by agent Pothan, against

possession of the property, purchased in execution being taken. The learned Subordinate Judge had dismissed the application holding that

petitioner should file a fresh execution application and cannot claim to join in the present proceedings relying on Manikkam v. Tatayya ILR 26 C.

250.

In that case such a point was not discussed or decided. That case really decided that the beneficial owner can come in and execute a decree

obtained by a benamidar and if there was any dispute about the decree being benami the executing Court should decide it.

2.

Devar Buksh Sirkar v. Fatik Jali ILR (1898) Mad. 388 shows that a beneficial owner can ask to be added to a pending execution application

and it has been held in Muthiah Chettiar v. Govindoss Krishnadoss 41 M.L.J.316 that a part transferee of a decree can apply to execute it even

though there was an agreement to the contrary. The principle is clearly that parties should be allowed to join the record when their rights are in

danger. In this case therefore petitioner should have been added as party respondent.

3.

There is no meaning in telling petitioner to bring a fresh application for execution as the execution has been almost completed by sale of the

property and the only thing now remaining being to give possession to the auction purchaser.

4.

I would therefore set aside the order of the Lower Appellate Court and direct the Subordinate Judge to add petitioner as party respondent and

dispose of the appeal according to law. There will be no order as to costs here. This order will govern all the three petitions before me.