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

1964 Supreme(MP) 100

P.V.DIXIT, V.R.NEWASKAR, P.K.TARE
MOOLCHAND – Appellant
Versus
MAGANLAL – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS reference has been made by one of us (Newaskar J.) for resolving the conflict between the decisions in Lakhmichand v. Biharial, AIR, 1943 Nag 165 : ILR (1943) Nag 293 and Uttamchand Motilalji v. Wasudeo Deorao, AIR 1946 Nag 311 : ilr (1946) Nag 583.

( 2 ) THE material facts are that on the basis of an unregistered award a money decree for Rs. 900/- creating a charge on a house belonging to the respondent was passed in favour of the appellants. In execution proceedings of that decree, the house was sold and purchased by the decree-holders themselves. Thereupon, the respondent objected, to the sale on the ground that the decree itself was a nullity inasmush as the award had not been registered as required by Section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. This objection was) overruled by the executing Court. It, however, prevailed in appeal which the judgment-debtor) filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Dhar. The learned Additional District judge, following the decision in AIR 1946 Nag 311 : ILR (1946) Nag 583 (supra)held that the decree was a nullity and consequently the sale was also nullity.

( 3 ) THE decree-holders then filed a second appeal in















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