LexJANAPAREDDY LATCHAN NAIDU versus JANAPAREDDY SANYASAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 R~ Jtar!rlislura v. 1 !u StUIOf Bih•r 1963 F16ruttr,y, 11. 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. liberally construed, it would tend to cover a11 taxes, because in a loose sense, all taxes raised by the State can ultimately_ be said to be compensatory in a far- fetched manner, and in that way, the well-recognised constit11tional difference between a tax and a fee will be obliterated and the provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution will lose all their significance. Part XIII contains provisions which constitute a sel,f-contained code and we need not really travel outside the said pro- \'ision in determining the validity of the tax imposed bv the Act. Since we have come to the conclusion that tlic challenge to the valirlity of the retrospective opera- ! ion of the \ct cannot be sustained, we do not think it necessary to pursue this matter any further. In the result, the appeals fail aad are dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. JANAPAREDDY LATCHAN NAIDU v. JANAPAREDDY SANYASAMMA (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. ~. WANCHOO, M. HrnAYATULLAH, K. C. D.t.s GUPTA and j. C. SHAH, .JJ-) Jfaintf.11a1tce-/)ecree by court charging certain propertie1- .\-,1lun of •uch decru-lf oon be e.tecutf.d aq~in•t other prop<l'- ti<3--Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), •· 47. • • • The respondent, wife of the appellant, filed an execution ~tition for execution of a 1naintenance dcc:rcc obtained by her ,._.hich, in addition to the personal liability, created a charge for f past and future maintenance on three lots of properties. After obtaining the pcrmi5sion of the Court she purchased two item.. pf the properties subjoct to her 11\~intenance charge. Later •hi:, • 1 S'.C:R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 921 liled another ezecution petition seeking to bring to sale proper- tie& other than those purchased by her in the earlier execution. The appellant made an application under s. 4 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to record full sati•faction of the decree on the ground that by purchasing the properties subject to her charge she could not maintain a fresh application for the sale of the other properties. The Subordinate.Judge dismissed!the execution petition as not maintainable. Ori appeal by the respondent the High Court reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and ordered the execution to proceed. On appeal by special leave, this court held : · Held, that an executory charge-decree for ·maintenance becomes executable again a'nd again a• future sums become due. The cze<1:utabi!ity of the decree keeps the charge alive on the remaining properties originally charged till the future amounts cease. The whole of the charge continues over all the proper· ties jointly and severally and as the charge is different from a mortgag.:, it io not permissible to seek an analogy from the case of a mortgage. HeW., further, that between the appellant and the respon· dent tbe executini: court cannot order the respondent to proceed against properties in her possession even though it can make an election on behalf of the appellant and enforce the charge against one item in preference to another belonging to him; but the appellant cannot insist that the respondent should proceed against the properties acquired by her under the first sale. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRI·mICTION : Civil Appeal No. l!l4 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 28, 1!)59 of the Andhra Pradesh · i High Court at Hyderabad in C. M. A. No. 12@ of 1956. P. Ham Reddy, for the appellant. K. R. Choudhri, E. Udayarathnam and V. O. Prasliar, for the respondent. ' 1963. February I I. The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1963 Janapareddy Latcluzn .Naitlu v. J anaparetld y Sr.myasamma 1963 /"'4;.rJiy L.telwn NaUu v. 1"114/xlfeJ~, Sari1asamma Hui•,.iullah, /, 922 StJPllME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. HrnA.YA.Tt;LL.i.H, J.-The respondent who is the wife of the appellant obtained a decree for main· tenance on August !J, l949, by which the appellant was ordered t<J pay Rs. 3,000 per year to her on the 28th day of February of every year with interest at 6% per year if the payment was not made on the due sate. The decree included ascertained amounts as arrears of past maintenance and other items to which detailed reference is not necessary. In addition to the personal liability the decree created a charge fr'r past and future maintenance on three lots of pro- per
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.