Skip to content


Pandu Joti Kadam Vs. Savla Piraji Kate - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 203 of 1924
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Bom172; (1925)27BOMLR1109
AppellantPandu Joti Kadam
RespondentSavla Piraji Kate
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
decree - extension -- darkhasiderar hating no title 10 execute the decree at the date of application -subsequent assignment -defect not cured.;a darkliastdar, who has no title whatever to execute the decree at the time of the darkhust, cannot remedy the defect by completing the title after the date of the darkhast, and then try to execute the decree by virtue of that title. - - he failed to do so......judge with costs.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. We think that the decision of the Subordinate Judge was right, and that the authority relied upon by the Assistant Judge has no application. The applicant at the time he presented the darkhast had no title to the decree which he sought to execute. He had only a right under his own decree to obtain an assignment from the decree-holder of the other decree. The applicant was given time by the Sub ordinate Judge to cite any authority to support his proposition. He failed to do so. There in no authority that we know of which lays down that a darkhastdar, who has no title whatever to execute the decree at the time of the darkhast, can remedy the defect by completing the title after the date of the darkhust, and then try to execute the decree by virtue of that title.

2. We allow the appeal and restore the decree of the Subordinate Judge with costs throughout.


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