Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAJESWARI AMMA AND ANR. versus JOSEPH AND ANR.

Decided
10 January 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 163 · 1995 INSC 19
Also cited as
  • AIR 1995 SC 719 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Admittedly, the Execution petition was filed by Rajeshwari Amma, Sukumara Pillai and Neelamma Pillai, the legal representatives of the deceased Kolappa Pillai. After the Execution Petition was ordered by the Court of District Munsif at Kuzhithurai in E.P. No. 274/81 in O.S. No. 14/61 dated August 12, 1981, the respondents carried it in revision to the High Court. Therein only the deceased Kolappa Pillai, Rajeswari Amma and Sukumara Pillai were impleaded as respondents omitting Neelamma Pillai. In other words, the order of the Executing Court directing delivery of possession which was executed and possession taken in favour of the three persons was challenged against only two persons. The order in favour of 3rd person, namely, Neelamma Pillai became final. The Execution Petition being of the same property which is undivided between the decree-holders, the question emerges whether the High Court was right in allowing <:;.R.P. No. 2747/82 by order dated July 1, 1985 as against the unimpleaded respondent and whether that order also comes in aid to the appellants. On going through the record we find that there is some force in the arguments of Sri G. Viswanatha Iyer, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants. Since the order of delivery of possession in favour of the decree-holders is common and ins~parable and since it has become final as against Neelamma, the High Court was not right in setting aside the order as against the appellants. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that this contention was not raised before the High Court. But being a question of law, it is open to be raised and can be considered as the order is one of inseparable. Since the order against Neelamma had attained finality, we think that the High Court was not right in reversing the order of the executing Court as against two respondents. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. A.G. Appeal allowed.

p. 164, margin B