SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1918 Supreme(SC) 48

LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE, SIR JOHN EDGE, AMEER ALI, SIR WALTER PHILLIMORE
GAURISHANKAR BALMUKUND – Appellant
Versus
CHINNUMAYA – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitor for appellant: E. Dalgado.

Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (April 26, 1913) varying a decree of the District Court of Amraoti.

The appellant in 1909 sued the respondents upon a mortgage of lands and two houses executed by the first respondent on July 22, 1892. The other respondents had acquired interests in the property not material to this report.

Prior to the date of the mortgage part of the land included in it had been ordered to be sold in execution of money decrees against the first respondent, and the execution of the decrees had been transferred to the Collector under s. 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. The execution of the decrees by the Collector under the provisions of ss. 320 to 325 was concluded in 1894. The respondents pleaded, inter alia, that by reason of s. 325A of the Code the first respondent

03 Law Rep. 45 Ind. App. 219 ( 1917- 1918)

Gaurishankar Balmukund V. C hinnumaya 104

was incompetent to execute the mortgage.

The additional District Judge held that the mortgage was void so far as it related to property included in that against which the decrees had been made ; he made a foreclosure decree confined to the mortgaged property












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top