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

1963 Supreme(All) 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Bishambhar Dayal and R. S. Pathak, JJ.
JUGUL KISHORE - Appellant
Versus
GOBARDHAN LAL - Respondents
Exc. F. A. 4 Of 1959
Decided On : 09/18/1963

Advocates Appeared:
J.N.CHATTERJI, T.RATHORE

Headnote:

EXECUTION OF FOREIGN DECREE - BURMA DECREE - EXECUTION IN INDIA - RECIPROCITY - DATE OF EXECUTABILITY - EFFECT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES - CONDITIONAL STAY OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION - ADJUSTMENT OF DECREE - ATTACHMENT - EXECUTION BY ONE OF SEVERAL DECREE-HOLDERS.

Fact of the Case:

A decree passed by the Rangoon High Court in 1934 was sought to be executed in India after Burma separated from India in 1937. The judgment-debtors challenged the execution on various grounds, including the lack of reciprocity between India and Burma, the validity of the execution proceedings, and the effect of constitutional changes.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the execution of the decree was permissible in law. It found that the decree was passed by a court of competent jurisdiction and was enforceable in an appropriate court in British India. The court also held that the executability of the decree was to be determined with reference to the date on which the decree was passed, and not to the date of the execution application or the date of the orders passed on the execution application.

Issues: 1. Whether the execution of a foreign decree is permissible in India. 2. The date with reference to which the executability of a decree is to be determined. 3. The effect of constitutional changes on the execution of a decree. 4. The effect of a conditional stay of delivery of possession on the execution of a decree. 5. Whether the adjustment of a decree can be inferred from the withdrawal of amounts deposited by the judgment-debtors. 6. Whether a fresh attachment is required before a property can be brought to sale again after a previous sale has been set aside. 7. Whether one of several decree-holders can execute a decree on behalf of all.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The execution of a foreign decree is permissible in India if there is reciprocity between India and the country where the decree was passed. 2. The executability of a decree is to be determined with reference to the date on which the decree was passed. 3. Constitutional changes do not affect the execution of a decree unless there is a specific provision to that end. 4. A conditional stay of delivery of possession does not affect the execution of a decree. 5. The adjustment of a decree cannot be inferred from the withdrawal of amounts deposited by the judgment-debtors. 6. A fresh attachment is not required before a property can be brought to sale again after a previous sale has been set aside. 7. One of several decree-holders can execute a decree on behalf of all.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both appeals filed by the judgment-debtors, upholding the validity of the sale of the Swadeshi Bazar and Generalganj properties.

PATHAK, J.

( 1 ) THESE are two judgment-debtors appeals arising out of execution proceedings.

( 2 ) RAM Samp Nanhumal and Madan Mohan Goverdhan Lal filed suit No. 389 of 1934 against behari Lal and Jugal Kishore for money due on a promissory note in the High Court at Rangoon, and the suit was decreed on Sept 14, 1934. A decree for Rs 21,247/- was drawn up by the rangoon High Court which granted a certificate on July 23, 1936 to the decree-holders to execute the decree. On October 21, 1936, the decree-holders moved an execution application (Execution Case No. 120 of 1936) before the Court at Kanpur seeking execution of the decree by attachment and sale of two properties, 47/65 Swadeshi Bazar and 48/121 Generalganj, both situate in Kanpur Shortly thereafter an order directing execution was passed upon that application, and on March 12, 1937 proceedings under Order 21, Rule 66 of the C. P. C. were commenced.

( 3 ) ON February 16, 1938 Ram Sarup Nanhumal, one of the decree-holders died and on account of disputes between rival claimants his legal representative was not brought on record until 1943. Meanwhile, on February 26, 1938 the execution application was struck off for want of prosecution. This order was later set aside on appeal and the executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution,

( 4 ) ON June 2, 1943 both the properties were put to auction. The Swadeshi Bazar property was purchased by the decree-holder Madan Mohan Goverdhan Lal for Rs 700/-, while the generalganj property was auctioned for Rs. 12,000/- to one Rameshwat. The judgment-debtors filed objections, upon which the executing Court by order dated August 14, 1944, set aside the auction sale of the Generalganj property but maintained that of the Swadeshi Bazar property.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the rejection of their objection to the sale of the Swadeshi Bazat property, the judgment debtors preferred an appeal (F. A. . F. O. No. 290 of 1944) to this Court, and succeeded in obtaining an ex parte order on November 14, 1944 staying delivery of possession. The stay application was finally disposed of on November 20, 1944, when an order was passed by this court directing that delivery of possession would remain stayed subject to the Judgment-debtors depositing the decretal amount in monthly instalments of one thousand rupees each in the executing Court until the entire liability stood satisfied and further stipulating that upon default in payment of any instalment the stay order would stand discharged.

( 6 ) THE judgment-debtors duly deposited nine instalments, but defaulted in paying the instalment due on November 1, 1945. On December 3, 1945 the default was condoned by this Court, and upon the judgment-debtors defaulting again immediately thereafter there was a further order on december 18, 1945 condoning that default. It seems that the judgment-debtors were unable to deposit the very next instalment again, and, therefore, on March 22, 1946 the decree-holder applied to the executing Court for delivery of possession of the auctioned property. That Court passed an order on March 22, 1946 directing the decree-holder to be put into possession, and possession was accordingly delivered. The First Appeal from Or. No. 290 of 1944 which was pending meanwhile in this Court, was dismissed on July 23, 1947.

( 7 ) UPON application by the decree-holder on July 23, 1946, the executing Court directed execution to proceed against the Generalganj property. It appears from the record that a direction was issued by the Court in August 1946 for sale of the property and a sale proclamation was drawn up. Objections filed by the judgment-debtors were dismissed on August 23, 1947. Finally on April 20, 1948 this property was sold for Rs 17,400/ -.

( 8 ) ON May 25, 1948 the judgment-debtors filed an objection (Misc. No. 26 of 1948) which was rejected on December 6, 1958 giving rise to First Appeal From Order No. 34 of 1959 in this court On April 30, 1949 the judgment-debtors filed further o































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 Back to top