Skip to content


Hirachand Motichand Vs. Hansabai Ganpatrao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 670 of 1921
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom190; (1923)25BOMLR76
AppellantHirachand Motichand
RespondentHansabai Ganpatrao
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
dekkhan agriculturists' relief act (xvii of 1879), section 22(2) - decree for money-execution against agriculturist-death of judgment-debtor-heirs of the judgment-debtor cannot be proceeded against under section 22(2). ;where a money decree has been obtained against an agriculturist no order under section 22(2) of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act can be passed with reference to his immoveable property which on his death has passed into the possession of his heirs. - .....was an ordinary money decree, and, therefore, he could not seek to execute the decree against the immoveable property of the judgment-debtor who was held to be an agriculturist. but the plaintiff might have applied to the court under paragraph 2 of section 22 of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act to direct the collector to take possession, according to the terms of that paragraph, of any immoveable property of the judgment-debtor to the possession of which he was entitled, and which in the opinion of the collector was not required for her support and the support of the members of her family dependent on her. the judgment-debtor having died, this darkhast was filed against her daughters as her heirs; and it is now contended that the court has jurisdiction to direct the collector to.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. A question arises in this appeal which does not appear to have been decided in any reported case. The plaintiff obtained a decree against one Sagunabai. It was an ordinary money decree, and, therefore, he could not seek to execute the decree against the immoveable property of the judgment-debtor who was held to be an agriculturist. But the plaintiff might have applied to the Court under paragraph 2 of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act to direct the Collector to take possession, according to the terms of that paragraph, of any immoveable property of the judgment-debtor to the possession of which he was entitled, and which in the opinion of the Collector was not required for her support and the support of the members of her family dependent on her. The judgment-debtor having died, this Darkhast was filed against her daughters as her heirs; and it is now contended that the Court has jurisdiction to direct the Collector to take possession of the immoveable property which has come to the daughters as heirs of the original judgment-debtor. Both Courts have dismissed the Darkhast, and we think they were right. If it had been intended that in the case of the death of a judgment-debtor who was an agriculturist, his property in the hands of his heirs could be taken possession of by the Collector under the directions of the Court, then that ought to have been specifically stated in the second para of Section 22. We cannot accede to the argument that we should read into the section the words 'or his heirs' after the word 'judgment-debtor 'with the various consequential alterations which would have to be made in that paragraph. That would be, so far as I can see, entirely contrary to all canons of construction, and if the Legislature thinks that a creditor should have the remedy provided by Section 22, paragraph 2, not only against the judgment debtor, but also against his heirs, then it is for the Legislature to make the necessary amendments in the Act. The appeal will be dismissed.


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