Baluswamy vs Lakshmanan And Ors. on 16 August, 1898

JUDGMENT

1. I am asked to say that a purchaser who was also decree-holder may, in defiance of his own agreement, insist on an order under Section 318. It is clear to my mind that the Judge intended to find that there was an agreement between the parties and that under it Rs. 1,100 had been received by the purchaser. The case cited (Muttia v. Appasami, I.L.R., 13 M., 504) is an authority against the purchaser, for it shows that an agreement like the present may bind him.

2. I dismiss the appeal with costs.