Skip to content


Govind Ragunath Vs. Govinda Jagoji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1877)ILR1Bom500
AppellantGovind Ragunath
RespondentGovinda Jagoji
Excerpt:
possession - sale in execution--assignment. - .....debars a third person from taking an assignment of such property from the auction-purchaser, albeit it had not been reduced into possession. this is not the case of a speculative claim, such as this court has refused to recognize, and we are unable to concur in the view taken by the assistant judge that the sale of such a title is 'against policy and justice and tending to promote unnecessary litigation.' we reverse the decree of the lower court, and return the case in order that the claim may be disposed of on the merits. costs to follow final decision.
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the Assistant Judge was wrong in throwing out this claim on the ground that the assignment to the plaintiff was invalid. Upon a sale in execution of a decree the property in the thing sold passes to the purchaser, and we know of nothing in either the Hindu or the English law which debars a third person from taking an assignment of such property from the auction-purchaser, albeit it had not been reduced into possession. This is not the case of a speculative claim, such as this Court has refused to recognize, and we are unable to concur in the view taken by the Assistant Judge that the sale of such a title is 'against policy and justice and tending to promote unnecessary litigation.' We reverse the decree of the lower Court, and return the case in order that the claim may be disposed of on the merits. Costs to follow final decision.


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