Skip to content


C.E. Grey, Official Assignee Vs. Hazari Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1908)ILR30All486
AppellantC.E. Grey, Official Assignee
RespondentHazari Lal
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 24a - official assignee--disallowance of claim of official assignee to have proceeds of sale in execution of decree against insolvent judgment debtor paid to him--appeal. - - 3. the decision cited above is clearly in favour of this objection......the application.2. the official assignee comes here in appeal. an objection is taken that no appeal lies, on the ground that he is not the representative of the judgment-debtors within the meaning of section 244 of the code of civil procedure and that this application does not relate to the execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree and consequently no appeal lies.3. the decision cited above is clearly in favour of this objection. that decision has never been overruled by this court, and has been followed, in the case of sardarmal v. aranvayal sabhapathy (1896) i.l.r. 21 bom. 205 and chandmull v. ranee soondery dossee (1894) i.l.r. 22 calc. 259. with reference to these authorities we must sustain the objection and hold that no appeal lies. the remit is we dismiss this appeal.....
Judgment:

Richards and Griffin, JJ.

1. The respondent decree-holder obtained a decree against Dhani Ram and his son, Lachmi Narain on the 2nd of May 1907. In execution of his decree, property belonging to the judgment-debtors was sold on the 27th and the 28th May 1907. The judgment-debtors were declared insolvent by the Calcutta High Court and vesting orders in respect of their property were passed in the case of Dhani Ram on the 17th May 1907 and in the case of Lachmi Narain on the 29th May 1907. The insolvents' schedules were not filed until the 7th April 1908. The appellant, who is the Official Assignee, applied to the Court below for payment to him of the proceeds of the sale. The Court below relying on the ruling of this Court in Kashi Prasad v. Miller (1885) I.L.R. 7 All. 752 refused the application.

2. The Official Assignee comes here in appeal. An objection is taken that no appeal lies, on the ground that he is not the representative of the judgment-debtors within the meaning of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that this application does not relate to the execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree and consequently no appeal lies.

3. The decision cited above is clearly in favour of this objection. That decision has never been overruled by this Court, and has been followed, in the case of Sardarmal v. Aranvayal Sabhapathy (1896) I.L.R. 21 Bom. 205 and Chandmull v. Ranee Soondery Dossee (1894) I.L.R. 22 Calc. 259. With reference to these authorities we must sustain the objection and hold that no appeal lies. The remit is we dismiss this appeal with costs.


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