Skip to content


Jamsedji Manekji Kotwal Vs. Haria Daya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal No. 18 of 1906
Judge
Reported in(1908)10BOMLR18
AppellantJamsedji Manekji Kotwal
RespondentHaria Daya
Excerpt:
.....suit must fail as being barred by section 244 of the civil procedure code, the bar is said to arise out of the fact that the vendor to the present plaintiff, of the land sought to be protected by the......code, the bar is said to arise out of the fact that the vendor to the present plaintiff, of the land sought to be protected by the. injunction, obtained in another suit an injunction to the effect now sought.2. therefore it is said the plaintiff's remedy is not by way of suit but of execution of the former decree.3. the judge of the-lower appellate court- appears to rely on sections 372, 647 and 244 of the civil procedure code. mr. mehta has felt that he could not support the decree on that ground. so he has had recourse to section 232, but at the outset he is met with the difficulty that there has been no transfer of the decree.4. an injunction does not run with the land and therefore there is, in our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, no bar to the plaintiff's' suit.5. the.....
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.

1. This is a suit for an injunction. It has been decided by the District Court that the suit must fail as being barred by Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code, The bar is said to arise out of the fact that the vendor to the present plaintiff, of the land sought to be protected by the. injunction, obtained in another suit an injunction to the effect now sought.

2. Therefore it is said the plaintiff's remedy is not by way of suit but of execution of the former decree.

3. The Judge of the-lower appellate Court- appears to rely on Sections 372, 647 and 244 of the Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Mehta has felt that he could not support the decree on that ground. So he has had recourse to Section 232, but at the outset he is met with the difficulty that there has been no transfer of the decree.

4. An injunction does not run with the land and therefore there is, in our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, no bar to the plaintiff's' suit.

5. The order must, therefore, be reversed and the case-must be remanded to be heard on the merits.

6. The plaintiff must get the costs of the appeal to this Court and to the lower appellate Court.


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