Skip to content


Khurshetbibi and ors. Vs. Keso Vinayek - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR12Bom101
AppellantKhurshetbibi and ors.
RespondentKeso Vinayek
Excerpt:
decree - execution--sale in execution of a decree against a deceased person represented by a minor son--how far such sale affects interest of an heir not party to decree or execution proceedings. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v..........be disregarded as falsa demonstration, and not as intended to restrict the property sold to the minor's share. the purchaser would, therefore, be justified in assuming that he was bidding for the entirety of khatizabibi's share in the khoti, and (on the principle established by the case of ishan chander mitter v. buksh ali soudagur marsh. rep, 614, which was acted upon by this court in jairam bajabashet v. joma kondia i.l.r., 11 bom., 361 would acquire a title unimpeachable by the daughter, who was equally responsible for the debt on 'any other ground than that the debt was not due. as there was no suggestion that this was the case, we think the defendants could not justify their refusal to pay the whole 8 annas 6 pies share in the produce of the khoti, on the mere technical ground.....
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. The plaintiff was the purchaser at auction sale in execution of a decree on a bond against 'Khatiza, deceased, represented by her minor son represented by his guardian.' The certificate of sale purports to convey to the plaintiff, in execution of the above decree, the thereunder written property in possession of Sharifabibi, grandmother and guardian of the minor-the property being subsequently described as the right, title, and interest of Khatizabibi, described as the deceased defendant, in the 3 annas 6 pies' share in the khoti. As no part of the produce of the khoti was in actual possession of either of the heirs of the deceased Khatizabibi, the latter part of the description of the property may, we think, having regard to the form of the suit, be disregarded as falsa demonstration, and not as intended to restrict the property sold to the minor's share. The purchaser would, therefore, be justified in assuming that he was bidding for the entirety of Khatizabibi's share in the khoti, and (on the principle established by the case of Ishan Chander Mitter v. Buksh Ali Soudagur Marsh. Rep, 614, which was acted upon by this Court in Jairam Bajabashet v. Joma kondia I.L.R., 11 Bom., 361 would acquire a title unimpeachable by the daughter, who was equally responsible for the debt on 'any other ground than that the debt was not due. As there was no suggestion that this was the case, we think the defendants could not justify their refusal to pay the whole 8 annas 6 pies share in the produce of the khoti, on the mere technical ground that the daughter had not been made a party to the original suit.


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