Menika vs Hamy – clr volume 2 page 145

In MENIKA v. HAMY, the court considered whether sections 325 and 326 of the Civil Procedure Code apply when a judgment creditor, having been put in possession of land by a writ, is later dispossessed after a significant lapse of time. It was determined that the remedies available under these sections are confined to disturbances occurring at the point of taking possession, and not to interruptions arising well after delivery has been completed. The holding clarifies that the proper course in the event of subsequent dispossession is to bring a new action, rather than seeking further relief under section 325 or 326. This decision reaffirms the principle that “taking complete and effectual possession” refers to an immediate act upon delivery, not a continuous state, and relied upon the interp