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

1948 Supreme(SC) 44

Bhan Kumar Chand and another – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Hy S.L. Polak and Co., Douglas Grant and Co., Dingal Foot, A.G.P. Pullan

Sir Madhavan Nair.-

The appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of the decree in Suit No. 177 of 1924 (remanded), made by the Subordinate Judge of Arrah on 17 - 5 - 1930, which was modified by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in P. A. No. 130/1930, on 9 - 1 - 1935.

[2] The order of the High Court in pursuance of which execution proceedings had been taken runs as follows:

"In the execution there must be an enquiry as to the respective areas of Balbhadarpur and Darihat as they existed at the time of the defendant's mortgages irrespective of the cadastral survey."

[3] The order now appealed against was passed by the High Court on 29 - 1 - 1944, setting aside the order in execution proceedings of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Arrah dated 18 - 11 - 1942, passed in pursuance of the High Court's order in F. A. No. 130/1930 (quoted above), and dismissing the said execution proceedings.

[4] The question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellants (decree - holders) are entitled to get in execution proceedings an order for possession of the village Darihat which had been decreed to them, the boundaries and area of which cannot be ascertained and which they are unable to



















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