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

1968 Supreme(Cal) 113

BIJAYESH MUKHERJI
UMAPRASAD PAL – Appellant
Versus
MRITYUNJAY PAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Debabrata Nandi, NAGENDRA NATH TALUKDAR, PANCHANAN PAL, PRAVAS CHANDRA CHATTERJI

BIJAYESH MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a rule obtained by the decree-holders in a partition suit, being Title Suit No. 14 of 1962 challenging the order of the munsif qua Executing court under Order 21. Rule 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which Mritvuniay Pal a pro forma defendant in that very suit, has been directed to be put into possession of the disputed property here - the northern portion of plot No. 902 admeasuring 11 acres, and forming part of the final decree.

( 2 ) IN the original suit, no relief was claimed against Mritvunjay Pal. All the same he was dispossessed of the property in controversy in execution of the decree by the decree-holders with the result aforesaid order for restoration of his possession.

( 3 ) AP a matter of words, O. 21, R. 100 has little repellent here. A judgment-debtor means a person against whom a decree has been passed: vide section 2 (10) upon which Mr Pal relies Mritvuniay is a person against whom no decree has been passed. He is, therefore a person other than a judgment-dentor within the meanims of Order 21 Rule 100. And such a one has been dispossessed of the immovable property in dispute here by the holders of the decree for 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