STATE OF MADRAS Vs. JAVALI GOVINDAPPA ALIAS RINDAYYA FIRM
LAWS(MAD)-1953-9-14
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 30,1953

STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR, BELLARY Appellant
VERSUS
JAVALI GOVINDAPPA ALIAS RINDAYYA FIRM BY PARTNER SURASETTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ramaswami, J. - (1.) These are applications by the state of Madras purporting to be made under Order 22 Rule 10, C. P. C.
(2.) The facts are: O. S. No. 247 of 1947 was filed in the District Munsif's Court, Hospet, by Javali Govindappa 'alias' Rindayya firm at Hospet by partner Surasetty Basappa against the state of Madras in the Commercial Tax Department. This Govindappa 'alias' Rindayya died on 22-10-1951 at Hospet surviving him his Collector, Bellary vs. Javali Govindappa alias Ri... Page 2 of 3 widow Narasamma and Surasetty Basappa died on 4-3-1952 surviving him his major son Satyanarayana Setty. This firm has ceased to function after 1949. In regard to the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 247 of 1947 a second appeal has been filed by the State of Madras in S. A. No. 886 of 1952. In regard to the decree and judgment, in O. S. No. 246 of 1947 in which the plaintiff was Surasetty Basappa, A. Sivappa Firm, Kottur, and the defendant was the state of Madras, a second appeal has been filed by the state of Madras to S. A. NO. 887 Of 1952. C. M. P. No. 1660 of 1953 is filed in S. A. No. 887 of 1952 to bring Satya-harayana Setty as the legal representative of Surasetty Basappa and Gurubasappa as the legal representative of Sivappa. Affidavits have been filed in both these applications through the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Hospet, about these deaths and the Department coming to know of them only in December 1952 and praying for bringing on record the legal representatives Narasamma and Satyanarayana Setty in C. M. P. No. 1659 of 1953 and Suresetti Satyanarayana Setti and Adur Gurubasappa as the legal representatives in C. M. P. NO. 1660 of 1953. 2a. These applications are opposed on two grounds, viz, (a) laches and (b) the application should have been made under Order 22 Rule 4, C. P, C.
(3.) In regard to laches, it is unnecessary to go into this question now in view of the turn which these applications have taken.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.