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

1952 Supreme(All) 123

MUSHTAQ AHMAD
RAM LAKHAN – Appellant
Versus
SUMESAR RAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.N.Singh, Shankar Sahai Varma

MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a decree-holders appeal and it raises a highly interesting point.

( 2 ) ON 17th January 1942, a final decree for sale under Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P. C. , was passed in favour of the appellant. On 22nd July 1947, the Collector passed an order granting a self-liquidating mortgage under Section 17, Proviso 3, to the appellant for a period of 20 years in part satisfaction of the decree. The amount due under the final decree was Rs. 2048-15-0, whereas the amount for which this mortgage was granted was only Rs. 1446-4-0 (not Rs. 1464-4-0 as mentioned in the order of the execution court) in respect only of protected land. We do not know whether such land only was covered by the mortgage or whether it included any other class of property also.

( 3 ) ON 3lst August 1948, the appellant filed an application for execution of the decree in respect of the unpaid portion of the money as against some other properties of the judgment-debtor. He alleged that a part of the property on which the self-liquidating mortgage had been granted had gone out of his possession, and this may have been the reason for his seeking to recover the remaining amount by execution. This


















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