Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Mannem Seshadri Reddi v. Putta Venkata Reddy

Mannem Seshadri Reddi v. Putta Venkata Reddy

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Appeal Against Order No. 78 Of 1922 | 19-04-1923

We think the Lower Appellate Courts order can, be justified by reference to Sect. 146 of the Civil Procedure Code. In accordance with the dictum of Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Sitaramaswami v. Lakshmi Narasimha (I.L.R., 41 Mad., 510 [LQ/MadHC/1917/316] =8 L.W., 21) the words claiming under in that section are wide enough to cover even cases of devolution mentioned in O. 22, R. 10.

It is urged that, here the respondent-petitioner is a transferee of property concerned in the decree, which he desires to execute, not of that decree itself. We do not think the distinction substantial. For we cannot understand how one person can be claiming under another, in respect of property, when he does not claim under him, equally in respect of the decree dealing with the property. Taking this view, we dismiss the appeal against appellate order with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Advocate List
  • For the Appellant A. Krishnaswami Aiyar, Advocate. For the Respondent M. Patanjali Sastri, Advocate.
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FRANCIS OLDFIELD
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVADOSS
Eq Citations
  • 76 IND. CAS. 809
  • AIR 1924 MAD 709
  • LQ/MadHC/1923/183
Head Note

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 146 — Words “claiming under” — Meaning of — Held, wide enough to cover even cases of devolution mentioned in O. 22, R. 10 — Words and Phrases — “Claiming under”