Skip to content


Hari Venkatesh Pai Vs. Hari Venkappa Shetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Civil Reference No. 8 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR356
AppellantHari Venkatesh Pai
RespondentHari Venkappa Shetti
Excerpt:
.....house and property' of his judgment-debtor is prevented from doing so by a third person, he has a right of action against such third person to recover damages arising from his act. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the..........maxim, namely, where there is a right there is a remedy, applies. the judgment-creditor had a legal right to get the decree executed through the means of the court. the defendant obstructed him in the exercise of that right and the carrying out of that decree. therefore, he must be held liable upon the principle which we have mentioned. we would refer to the case of mccartney v. londonderry and lough swilly railway [1904] a. c. 301, where citing the note to mellor v. stateman 1 ws. 612 it is said: ' wherever any act injures another's right, and would be evidence in future in favour of the wrongdoer, an action may be maintained for an invasion of the right without proof of any specific injury.' this principle has been repeatedly recognised and acted upon. it is clearly applicable to.....
Judgment:

1. In our opinion we must answer the question referred to us by saying that the suit will lie. We have no doubt whatever that the legal maxim, namely, where there is a right there is a remedy, applies. The judgment-creditor had a legal right to get the decree executed through the means of the Court. The defendant obstructed him in the exercise of that right and the carrying out of that decree. Therefore, he must be held liable upon the principle which we have mentioned. We would refer to the case of McCartney v. Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway [1904] A. C. 301, where citing the note to Mellor v. Stateman 1 WS. 612 it is said: ' Wherever any act injures another's right, and would be evidence in future in favour of the wrongdoer, an action may be maintained for an invasion of the right without proof of any specific injury.' This principle has been repeatedly recognised and acted upon. It is clearly applicable to the present case. With this answer the papers must be returned to the referring Court.


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