Skip to content


Hari Mahadev Vadekar Vs. Vishnu Balkrishna Risbud - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 1020 of 1928
Judge
Reported in(1931)33BOMLR622
AppellantHari Mahadev Vadekar
RespondentVishnu Balkrishna Risbud
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....1908), article 182--decree,--execution--step-in-aid of execution--darkhast against a wrong legal representative of deceased judgment-debtor.;a bona fide application against a wrong person as the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor serves to save limitation.;balkishen das v. bedmali koer (1892) i.l.r. 20 cal. 388, 396, hari v. narayan (1887) i.l.r. 12 bom. 427, and ramaswami chettiar v. oppilamani chetti (1909) i.l.r. 33 mad. 6, followed. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out..........in this appeal is whether the present darkhast is in time. that depends upon the question whether the darkhast of april 15, 1920, was a step-in-aid of execution, as both the lower courts have held.2. in that darkhast, the judgment-debtor devki died leaving minor children and her husband. instead of presenting the darkhast against the children by their guardian the father as the legal representative, the darkhast of 1920, was against the husband of devki as such. that mistake was subsequently corrected. but it is nevertheless a bona fide mistake as the decree-holder had nothing to gain by omitting the children by their guardian the father and putting forward the father alone. in this view, the case falls within the class of cases where all bona fide applications against a wrong person.....
Judgment:

Madgavkar, J.

1. The question in this appeal is whether the present darkhast is in time. That depends upon the question whether the darkhast of April 15, 1920, was a step-in-aid of execution, as both the lower Courts have held.

2. In that darkhast, the judgment-debtor Devki died leaving minor children and her husband. Instead of presenting the darkhast against the children by their guardian the father as the legal representative, the darkhast of 1920, was against the husband of Devki as such. That mistake was subsequently corrected. But it is nevertheless a bona fide mistake as the decree-holder had nothing to gain by omitting the children by their guardian the father and putting forward the father alone. In this view, the case falls within the class of cases where all bona fide applications against a wrong person as the legal representative save limitation: Balkishen Das v. Bedmati Koer ILR (1892) Cal. 388, Hari v. Narayan ILR (1887) 12 Bom. 427, and Ramaswami Chettiar v. Oppilamani Chetti ILR (1909) Mad. 6. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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