ARAPAYIL PATTUTHI UMMA Vs. THACHARKAVIL UMMI KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judge is wrong in holding that the plaintiff could not have executed the decree in his favour which was attached by the defendant. See Patumma V/s. Idiri Beari 13 M.L.J. 265, Sami Pillai V/s. Krishnasami Chetti 21 M. 417 and Adhar Chandra Dass V/s. Lal Mohun Das 24 C. 778 : 1 C.W.N. 676.

(2.) FOR the loss sustained by the plaintiff, by the execution of his decree being barred by limitation, the plaintiff is responsible. The decree of the lower Court is reversed and the suit dismissed with costs throughout.