Skip to content


Mahomed Hashim and anr. Vs. Radha Kishun - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All687
AppellantMahomed Hashim and anr.
RespondentRadha Kishun
Excerpt:
- .....the deposit was made. the question between the parties arose whether in the circumstances the decree in favour of the appellants stood or vacated itself. the courts below came to the conclusion, following two cases decided by this court, that the appellants were bound to deposit the money in terms of the decree, and the fact that the courts were closed was of no help to them.2. it has since been held by a full bench of three learned judges of this court that where a conditional decree is passed on payment of money it is open to the decree holder to deposit the money after the re-opening of the court, if the court was closed on the last date on which the money could be deposited. see mohammad jan v. shiam lal a.i.r. 1924 all. 218.3. in view of the authoritative pronouncement the.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. A decree was passed by this Court in second appeal on the 4th of April, 1922, in favour of the appellants Sheik Muhammad Hashim and Baldeo Singh against the respondent Radha Kishun, conditional on payment of the sum of Rs. 1,940 within two months. The amount thus ordered to be paid was not paid into Court until the 21st of June, 1922 The Courts below were closed for the vacation between the 20th May, 1922, and the 20th of June, 1922. On the re-opening of the Court the deposit was made. The question between the parties arose whether in the circumstances the decree in favour of the appellants stood or vacated itself. The Courts below came to the conclusion, following two cases decided by this Court, that the appellants were bound to deposit the money in terms of the decree, and the fact that the Courts were closed was of no help to them.

2. It has since been held by a Full Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that where a conditional decree is passed on payment of money it is open to the decree holder to deposit the money after the re-opening of the Court, if the Court was closed on the last date on which the money could be deposited. See Mohammad Jan v. Shiam Lal A.I.R. 1924 All. 218.

3. In view of the authoritative pronouncement the decision of the Court must be in favour of the appellants, and it must be held that the deposit was within time.

4. That being so, the present appeal is allowed with costs in all the three Courts including fees in this Court on the higher scale.

5. The result is that the application of the respondent to be restored into possession will stand dismissed. If under that application the respondent has been put into possession, the appellant will recover possession under the present order.


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