Skip to content


Krishnaji Janardan Vs. Murrarrav and Narsingrav - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR12Bom48
AppellantKrishnaji Janardan
RespondentMurrarrav and Narsingrav
Excerpt:
.....by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. - in holding that they were not the heirs or representatives of vithalrav he was clearly right, but he proceeds to consider whether they could now be placed on the record as heirs of yashvantrav, or otherwise we do not understand how the question of limitation could arise......lal i.l.r., 3 all., 517 that the application for execution against one of the representatives of a sole judgment-debtor saves limitation against another representative. the application would not, therefore, be too late as against murrarrav and narsingrav regarded as joint representatives with vithalrav of the original judgment-debtor, yashvantrav.2. we must, therefore, discharge the order, and send back the case for a fresh decision, having regard to the third issue, which is to be understood as including the question whether the mortgage was valid beyond yashvantravs life-time, and, if so, whether it was for a legitimate purpose so as to bind his sons. costs to abide the result.
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. The Acting Judge would appear to have treated the application as one to place Murrarrav and Narsingrav on the record for the purpose of executing the decree against them. In holding that they were not the heirs or representatives of Vithalrav he was clearly right, but he proceeds to consider whether they could now be placed on the record as heirs of Yashvantrav, or otherwise we do not understand how the question of limitation could arise. He says, and rightly, that they were every bit as much as Vithalrav necessary parties to the darkhast of 1878, and concludes that not having been made parties it is now too late to proceed against them. We agree, however, with the ruling in Ram Anuj Sewak Singh v. Hingu Lal I.L.R., 3 All., 517 that the application for execution against one of the representatives of a sole judgment-debtor saves limitation against another representative. The application would not, therefore, be too late as against Murrarrav and Narsingrav regarded as joint representatives with Vithalrav of the original Judgment-debtor, Yashvantrav.

2. We must, therefore, discharge the order, and send back the case for a fresh decision, having regard to the third issue, which is to be understood as including the question whether the mortgage was valid beyond Yashvantravs life-time, and, if so, whether it was for a legitimate purpose so as to bind his sons. Costs to abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //