Skip to content


Chunilal Jamnadas Vs. Mulchand Harjivandas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 97 of 1921
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom23; (1922)24BOMLR440; 67Ind.Cas.417
AppellantChunilal Jamnadas
RespondentMulchand Harjivandas
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....be given effect to, the house was burnt down. the plaintiff was thereupon anxious to drop the execution proceedings, but the defendant objected and elected to carry on the proceedings himself :-;that the defendant should be allowed to continue the application for execution in older that the suit property might be partitioned. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of..........broach. the plaintiff, on the 12th march 1915, took out a darkhast for partition of the suit property and moveables. commissioners were appointed, who submitted a report with regard to ornaments. but with regard to a certain house mr. hargovandas was appointed commissioner to effect a division of it. he made a report, but before the report could be given effect to the house was burnt down. the plaintiff then wanted to drop the execution proceedings, but the defendant objected. the court allowed the plaintiff to drop the execution proceedings. the result would be that those defendants who wished to continue the execution proceedings could not do so without having to issue a fresh darkhast. we see no reason why the defendants should not have been allowed to continue the darkhast in.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, C.J.

1. This was a partition suit in which a consent decree for partition was obtained on 8th November 1911 from the First Class Subordinate Judge, Broach. The plaintiff, on the 12th March 1915, took out a Darkhast for partition of the suit property and moveables. Commissioners were appointed, who submitted a report with regard to ornaments. But with regard to a certain house Mr. Hargovandas was appointed Commissioner to effect a division of it. He made a report, but before the report could be given effect to the house was burnt down. The plaintiff then wanted to drop the execution proceedings, but the defendant objected. The Court allowed the plaintiff to drop the execution proceedings. The result would be that those defendants who wished to continue the execution proceedings could not do so without having to issue a fresh Darkhast. We see no reason why the defendants should not have been allowed to continue the Darkhast in order that the suit property might be partitioned. Therefore we allow the appeal and direct the Darkhast to continue at the instance of the defendant. The plaintiff to pay the appellant's costs in both Courts.


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