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

1965 Supreme(All) 231

B. DAYAL
Ram Nath – Appellant
Versus
Sarjoo – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
K. N. Tripathi, Advocate, for the Appellant

JUDGMENT

B. Dayal, J. - This is an Ex. Second Appeal by the decree-holder. He obtained a decree from the court of Small Causes at Bombay and got it transferred for execution to the court of the Munsif at Jaunpur. In execution of that decree, he got immoveable property attached. The judgment-debtor objected to the execution on the ground that in view of the amendment for Sec. 42, C. P. C. by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1954, the transferee court could not execute the decree against immoveable property. Both the courts below upheld the objection and disallowed execution against immoveable property.

2. In this Second Appeal it is contended that a decree passed by a Presidency Small Cause Court is not subject to the restriction made by the new amendment in Sec. 42, C. P C. in this State. It is contended that under Sec. 31 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, the President, Small Cause Court could transfer a decree for execution against immoveable property to a regular court or to the High Court and upon such transfer the decree could be executed by sale for immoveable property. Consequently, this right has not been taken away by the amendment of Sec. 42, C. P. C. I am unable

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