Q. What are the equivalent citations for Subramania Pillai vs Kumaravelu Ambalam Alias Vekrkaruppiah Kangani ?

The equivalence citation are(1916) ILR 39 MAD 541 ; 33 IND. CAS. 66 ; LQ/MadHC/1915/94 ;

Subramania Pillai Vs. Kumaravelu Ambalam Alias Vekrkaruppiah Kangani On 01 March, 1915

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Subramania Pillai vs Kumaravelu Ambalam Alias Vekrkaruppiah Kangani?

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SESHAGIRI AYYAR , HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAPIER

Open iDraf

Subramania Pillai v. Kumaravelu Ambalam Alias Vekrkaruppiah Kangani

Subramania Pillai
v.
Kumaravelu Ambalam Alias Vekrkaruppiah Kangani

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

No. | 01-03-1915

Seshagiri Ayyar, J.

[1] The attention of the Subordinate Judge was apparently not drawn to the decision in Rukmani Ammal v. Krishnamachary (1911) 9 M.L.T. 464 where Subrahmanya Ayyar and Boddam, JJ., follow the Bombay ruling in Laldas v. Kishondas (1898) I.L.R. 22 Bom. 46

3. Mr. Anantakrishna Ayyar argues that these two decisions had reference to the language employed in Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 which in express terms included stay of execution among questions relating to execution. We are not satisfied that the omission of these words in Section 47 of the present Code is any indication that matters relating to stay of execution are not within the section. The words omitted may have been regarded as superfluous; moreover the plea that the decree should not be enforced certainly relates to execution, whether it relates to stay of execution or not. It is not analagous to the plea of fraud in obtaining a decree because where fraud is set up, the decree is sought to be avoided and not to foe executed; but where an agreement is pleaded, it only affects the enforceability of the decree; we think the decision in Laldas v. Kishondas (1898) I.L.R. 22 Bom. 463 is correct and are not prepared to follow Hassan Ali v. Ganzi Alim (1914) I.L.R. 31 Calc. 179. We must set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to dispose of the appeal on the merits. Costs will abide the result.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties -------.

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SESHAGIRI AYYAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAPIER

Eq Citation

(1916) ILR 39 MAD 541

33 IND. CAS. 66

LQ/MadHC/1915/94

HeadNote

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 47 — Stay of execution — Whether a question relating to execution — Held, plea that decree should not be enforced certainly relates to execution whether it relates to stay of execution or not — Words “stay of execution” omitted in S. 47 of present Code are not any indication that matters relating to stay of execution are not within S. 47 — Words omitted may have been regarded as superfluous — Moreover, plea that decree should not be enforced is not analogous to plea of fraud in obtaining a decree because where fraud is set up decree is sought to be avoided and not to be executed but where an agreement is pleaded it only affects enforceability of decree — Bombay High Court, (1898) ILR 22 Bom 463 and Madras High Court, 9 MLT 464, referred to — Hassan Ali v Ganzi Alim, 1914 ILR 31 Calc 179, distinguished