Skip to content


Tajammul HusaIn Vs. Nath Mal Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All36
AppellantTajammul Husain
RespondentNath Mal Das and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 244 - question for--court executing decree--plaintiff suing in a character separate from that in which decree was passed against him--separate suit not barred. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed..........decrees in execution whereof the property was attached. for this contention, section 244 of the civil procedure code is relied upon, on the ground that the courts of revenue, in those matters of procedure on which the rent act is silent, have been held by a full bench of this court in madho prahash singh v. murli manohar i.l.r. 5 all. 406 to be governed by the principles of the civil procedure code.2. we are, however, of opinion that the suit was maintainable. the plaintiff in this suit is not suing in his own right, but in his capacity as custodian, trustee, or manager of the wakj property, and he must therefore be taken to fill a character separate from that in which the decrees were passed against him by the revenue court. section 244 of the civil procedure code does not,.....
Judgment:

Mahmood, J.

1. In the appeal before us, the learned pleader for the appellants has laid the greatest stress on the contention that the suit was not maintainable by the plaintiff, as he was the judgment-debtor of the decrees in execution whereof the property was attached. For this contention, Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code is relied upon, on the ground that the Courts of Revenue, in those matters of procedure on which the Rent Act is silent, have been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Madho Prahash Singh v. Murli Manohar I.L.R. 5 All. 406 to be governed by the principles of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. We are, however, of opinion that the suit was maintainable. The plaintiff in this suit is not suing in his own right, but in his capacity as custodian, trustee, or manager of the wakj property, and he must therefore be taken to fill a character separate from that in which the decrees were passed against him by the Revenue Court. Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code does not, therefore, bar the present suit, and the view which we have taken is supported by the principle laid down in Shankar Dial v. Amir Haidar I.L.R. 2 All. 752 and in the cases there cited. The legal objection therefore has no force.

3. The Court proceeded to consider the findings of the Court of First Instance upon the merits, and, holding that no grounds for disturbing these findings had been established, dismissed the appeal with costs.


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