Skip to content


Udraj Singh and anr. Vs. Shyam Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All338
AppellantUdraj Singh and anr.
RespondentShyam Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
- 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 under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under..........have found that by his consent it passed into the common stock, and, therefore, became part of the joint property. that is a question of fact to be judged upon the conduct of the parties.2. the second question which arises is whether his interest can be seized and sold by the decree-holder. if he were the father of the family, and were alive, the whole family property could be taken in execution in favour of the debt. if he were living, his right, title and interest could be sold, but he is dead; and when be dies, the other members of the joint family acquire an undivided share in his former interest by survivorship. the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor, which, as the privy council points out in the case of sripat singh dugar v. prodyot kumar tagore air 1916 pc 220 is.....
Judgment:

Walsh, J.

1. This is an execution appeal by the decree-holder. The decree is a simple money-debt obtained against Parsotam Das. I do not say that no point of law arises, but I think the law is clear. Two questions are involved. Parsotam Das was a member of a joint Hindu family, but he inherited property independently so that it became his self-acquired property; but both Courts have found that by his consent it passed into the common stock, and, therefore, became part of the joint property. That is a question of fact to be judged upon the conduct of the parties.

2. The second question which arises is whether his interest can be seized and sold by the decree-holder. If he were the father of the family, and were alive, the whole family property could be taken in execution in favour of the debt. If he were living, his right, title and interest could be sold, but he is dead; and when be dies, the other members of the joint family acquire an undivided share in his former interest by survivorship. The right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor, which, as the Privy Council points out in the case of Sripat Singh Dugar v. Prodyot Kumar Tagore AIR 1916 PC 220 is what the decree-holder can seize, disappeared when Parsotam Das died. I think therefore that the lower Court was right and that the appeal must be dismissed.


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