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

1926 Supreme(SC) 27

VISCOUNT DUNEDIN, LORD ATKINSON, AMEER ALI
JOWAD HUSSAIN – Appellant
Versus
GENDAN SINGH – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitor for appellant:J. Page Thomas. Solicitors for respondents: W. W. Box & Co.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 28 of 1924) from a decree of the High Court (March 22, 1922) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya.

On February 23, 1915, the respondents obtained a preliminary mortgage decree under Order xxxiv., r. 4, sub-r. 1. In May, 1915, they appealed from that decree to the High Court, contending that two items had been erroneously excluded from the amount of the decree. On August 22, 1915, the time fixed for payment by the preliminary decree expired without any payment having been made. On May 21, 1917, the High Court dismissed the appeal from the preliminary decree without extending the time for payment. On February 21, 1919, the respondents applied for a final mortgage decree under Order xxxiv., r. 5, sub-r. 2. The appellant filed an objection that the application was barred by limitation.

Law Rep. 53 Ind. App. 197 ( 1925- 1926)

Jowad Hussain V. Gendan Singh 85

The trial judge held that the application was not barred by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Sch. I., art. 181, as it was made within three years of the date of the decree of the High Court upon appeal. The High Court (Das and Adami JJ.) affirmed the decision. The appeal is reported at I. L. R. 1 P
















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