High CourtsDivision Bench(1933) 08 MAD CK 0020

(Thakoor) Ramachander Lalji (Firm) and Others vs M. Narasimhalu Chetty and Co.

Madras High Court · Decided on 18 August 1933 · Citation: AIR 1933 Mad 888

HON’BLE JUDGES
Walsh, 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

1 paragraphs · 184 words

Walsh, J.—I see no reason why the Court should refuse restitution. The decree was admittedly a nullity, the suit having been instituted against a dead man. The Civil Procedure Rules are not applicable against dead persons as remarked in Debi Baksh Singh v. Habib Shah (1913)35 All 331. The Court having levied execution when there was no decree has inherent power to rectify its own mistake u/s 151, Civil P.C.: vide also remarks in Sudalaimuthu Pillai and Others Vs. Sudalaimuthu Pillai and Others, . I do not propose to go into the academic question whether the petitioners can get a decree which is a nullity set aside or not because the only real question is whether he can get restitution of money paid in execution of what was not a decree. I have no doubt that he can. The order will be that the money wrongfully paid to the respondents by the petitioners must be refunded with interest at 6 per cent per annum from date of collection, viz., 21st January 1928, till date of restitution. Petitioners will be allowed costs of this petition.