Back
A.D.KOSHAL, R.B.MISRA, V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI
Pandurang Jivaji Apte – Appellant
Versus
Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar – Respondent
What is the effect of a party's admission on a court's finding of fact? What is the validity of an attachment of property that has been pledged? What are the rights of a decree-holder when the attached property has been sold to a third party?
Key Points: - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the District Judge's order (!) (!) . - The case involved the execution of a decree and the attachment and sale of property [judgement_subject]. - The High Court reversed the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts based on the assumption that the judgment debtors had not appeared (!) (!) [1000193400009]. - The Supreme Court found that the High Court was incorrect in reversing the finding of fact based on the plea that the judgment debtors had not appeared, as there was other evidence on record [1000193400010]. - The Supreme Court relied on the admission of the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor regarding the lien of the appellant (Apte) on the attached property [1000193400011] (!) (!) (!) . - The decree-holder admitted that the agreement for recovery was entered into on the basis that Apte had a lien on the property and that the decree-holder was to be paid only after Apte's dues were satisfied (!) . - The judgment-debtor stated that Apte's full dues were not satisfied even by the sale of the picture to Bavdekar for Rs. 49,000 (!) . - The Supreme Court held that the attachment of the property at the instance of the decree-holder was subject to the lien of Apte, and unless Apte's entire amount was cleared, the decree-holder could not proceed against the property in the hands of the purchaser [1000193400012]. - The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the finding of fact based on the assumption that the lower courts approached the case with a wrong view of law [1000193400012]. - Based on the findings of fact by the two lower courts, which were considered final, the decree-holder could not compel Apte or Bavdekar to produce the property or its sale proceeds as Apte's dues had not been satisfied [1000193400013].
Judgment
MISRA, J. :- The present appeal by special leave arises out of an execution proceeding and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 21st of January, 1970 in Letters Patent Appeal setting aside the order of the single Judge in Second Appeal. The appeal came up for hearing on September 24, 1981. After the conclusion of the arguments of the counsel for the parties, we allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the District Judge for reasons to be recorded later, in the following terms :
"This appeal is allowed with costs of this Court and the decree passed by the District Judge is restored. Reasons will follow later on,"
We now proceed to give the reasons.
2. Respondent No. 1, Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (since dead and represented by his legal representatives (filed a) regular suit No. 215 of 1959 for the recovery of his dues from Kamla Pictures. Kolhapur of which Bapusaheb Narayanrao Mohite (since dead and represented by his heirs and legal representatives) was the sole proprietor. It appears that after filing the suit the plaintiff applied for attachment of the defendants properties before judgment u
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
