Kerala High Court
AS/48/1950 of KERULAN GOVINDAN NAIR Vs NAGAVENY AMMAL on 7 February 1950
_.,, - Sd/K.S. GovJnda PillaY, Ju-dge •.-es Manager fo~• -- . Q . .,:> r.:: . :I"(:A.S;No.4a _ 01.- 1900. p'".-- -,. of 1099 On the file <J{ithe Vaikom court. · ·"\ ' Or_caer accptd.iJJ.glY • c~ur·f of_ Travancor~-Cocb::Ln .
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
_.\
A.S;N--o..4aQ_ 0.1..,:>- 190r.::0. p. :'"I".--(-:,.of 1099 On the file<J{ithe Vaikom"court.··\Jlppellanh-4Kther.i deal'ri~"I,\Gdoavnitn.@an a,ir, e•.,Ahi'.,kan@•.a"(t~Chhil· Veedu Kurun_ji iu. ,;.f, ._i·· .,. R· • . 'ama. .pu/r· ·a:,m :.../Pa.k:4•u.,,;t·:;,,h/j.''By·Jtdv:o·c~te Sri.P.GPv.ihdan Nair •.,-'\=,an..±,,·,··••{_-•{_-{_-_----±••{_-•{_-{_-_----e--- s·.:·····,..4 -.'/..
.·.-·,,,·,··••{_-•{_-{_-_----·..:····· -.'..1.Nagaveny!_·Ani!Il~l''Vvife of Subbarayan' Embran, of_Uduppil 1llom,residing at Puthen atom»KunnappaLlYKara;ulakulam.Pakuthy.2. Subbaraan. Ramak,r,ishnanEmbran of do. @o.y"·,g'3..' ·Ham,··ak,E·..fshnan, N. -ar-as·:tfu-.}:ian En.f<b±cro.4an of do.· do.·
y Advocate ri.s.NarayananPoti..{J\his appeal suit bavifg been heard on. the 7th February 1950\ ,I, ·this court on. the same idem d~livered the following:··· /I·J :u d gm en t._-·. }'he appeal is agai,nst ah order settling a proc..lam_ation.., r ..:i;{; !{. \,I·,ould appear there: is controversy between the parties ~s to wheth.,.'!'loneQf·the encumbrances reserved viz; , theQ.ecre e debt d.ue. .~ un..;~-.pce;r';. ··•~t•,·'The lower cou.rt w.ill direc"=t%the.•1O.S.294. of 1097 isa live one.e,,-c/proclamation to be suita\;ly amended so as to incorpor~,<'i;'lnto ,it i;J!,}'that the :parties are not a greed as to ; the Subsist5J,1,·c'~) of t·he deOt.JF j.,lls fOr.the other objections s_o long as the ·10>1..i ~SurJ has not.,gnne irifo the correctness of the ao1oimts f8'4'rvec" •for the decree io.s.No~:103C>":f'. 1.10·5 and the amounts dueasperthe decree underis.>s :-ex. ,ec u,tickJ>" th,.~'f),...is·. . no o.rder w.hi~h. ,;, .. ·,o•··;,,.-1:il, llt. '{".,e·'l:.fud.e t.he pa;r.ti<as from.iagitating . at. the•'11,propriate ti-« wha~''1;ll0 correct amounts due ar•····.· .,.. tr .· <.."l-...With . these observations theappealis dismi ssed, but the.proclamatwi11 be suitablY ''a.me!ld0<i\>11th t.fir•ere'nce to the first ·point mentim·
'
-above.
Or_caer accptd.iJJ.glY •