Skip to content


Totaram Chunilal Shet Vs. Chhoturam Motiram Shet - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal from Order No. 48 of 1922
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom299; (1923)25BOMLR446; 73Ind.Cas.454
AppellantTotaram Chunilal Shet
RespondentChhoturam Motiram Shet
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 89 - decree-execution-gale-application to set aside sale-deposit in court.; the phrase 'any amount which may have been received by the decree-holder' in clause (6) of order xxl, rule 89, of the civil procedure code, means money actually received by the decree-holder; and does not include payment of sale-proceeds into court.; trimbak v. ramchandra (1899) i.l.r. 23 bom. 723 : 1 bom. l.r. 215 followed. - - 1. the question in this appeal is clearly covered by the decision in trimbak v.norman macleod, kt., c.j.1. the question in this appeal is clearly covered by the decision in trimbak v. ramchandra i.l.r. (1899) 23 bom. 723 : 1 bom. l.r. 215 where it was held that payment of sale proceeds into court is not sufficient to constitute them money received by the decree holder. that decision was under section 310a of the code of civil procedure of 1882. the same words are used in order xxi, rule 89, of the present code. as long as the legislature has decided that only money received by the decree-holder can be taken into account, then it is not for the court to say that money paid into court, and not put into the pocket of the decree-holder, is money received by him. the appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The question in this appeal is clearly covered by the decision in Trimbak v. Ramchandra I.L.R. (1899) 23 Bom. 723 : 1 Bom. L.R. 215 where it was held that payment of sale proceeds into Court is not sufficient to constitute them money received by the decree holder. That decision was under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. The same words are used in Order XXI, Rule 89, of the present Code. As long as the Legislature has decided that only money received by the decree-holder can be taken into account, then it is not for the Court to say that money paid into Court, and not put into the pocket of the decree-holder, is money received by him. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.


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