Husseinsaheb Haidarsaheb Vs. Babaji Dhonddev Kulkarni - Court Judgment
|Case Number||First Appeal No. 55 of 1925|
|Judge||Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. ;and Coyajee, Adv.|
|Respondent||Babaji Dhonddev Kulkarni|
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 73-decree-execution-rateable distribution.; the appellant obtained a decree against in and s and in execution of it attached the judgment-debtors' decree under which revenues of certain villages were being received. the respondent, who held a decree against s alone, applied for rateable distribution of the assets :-; that the respondent was entitled to claim rateable distribution in such of the assets held by the court as could be found to belong to the share of s.; chhotalal v. nabibhai (1905) 7 bom. l.r. 567, followed. - 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..............
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. We think the Judge was right in following the decision in Chhotalal v. Nabibhai (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 567 so that Babaji, one of the decree-holders who had a decree against Suleman Madar-bhai only, could, as against Husseinsaheb Haidersaheb, who had a decree against Suleman Maderbhai and the heirs of Madarbhai Tarubhai, claim rateable distribution in such of the assets held by the Court as could be found to belong to the share of Suleman Madarbhai. The present appellant says that the assets belonged entirely to the heirs of Madarbhai Tarubhai who were joined as defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in this suit. That question must be decided by the Judge in execution before he can finally decide the claim of Babaji to rateable distribution.
2. We, therefore, allow the appeal to that extent and direct the Judge to decide what is the share of Suleman Madarbhai in the assets held by the Court. If the Court finds that Suleman Maderbhai had no interest in the assets then Babaji will not be entitled to rateable distribution.
3. We say nothing about the costs of this appeal