KRISHNAMACHARIAR Vs. KUPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case there was a decree for partition of certain properties including a house in Madras which, on appeal to the High Court, was, in 1889, modified by declaring the right of a widow to reside in this house. In 1901, on an application for execution, Shephard, J., returned the application to the District Judge of Chingleput, but no further action was taken in that Court until 1906 when the present application was made.

(2.) The first question we have to consider is the nature of the decree. That the decree-holder treated it as final and executable, is beyond doubt. He obtained possession of part of the property under it, and it is equally clear to us that the District Court of Chingleput intended the decree to be a final decree.

(3.) In 1901, no doubt, Shephard, J., expressed an opinion that a Commissioner ought to be appointed, but that view apparently did not commend itself to the appellant's guardian and no action was taken upon the suggestion.