Skip to content


Makund Ram Vs. Girdhari Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.277
AppellantMakund Ram
RespondentGirdhari Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
execution - application for transfer--second application for execution, whether in continuation of the first. - 1. a simple money-decree was obtained on december 4th, 1896. after various applications for execution, an application for the transfer of the decree to the court of the munsif of haveli was made, on december 2nd, 1898, and the application, out of which this appeal arises, was filed in the court of the munsif of haveli on february 15th, 1909, that is twelve years after the date of the decree. the judgment-debtor resisted the application on the ground that it was barred by the twelve years' rate of limitation. the court of first instance gave effect to that plea and rejected the application for execution. on appeal, the order of the first court was confirmed by the court of first appeal. in second appeal, it is argued that the application for execution was in continuation of the application.....
Judgment:

1. A simple money-decree was obtained on December 4th, 1896. After various applications for execution, an application for the transfer of the decree to the Court of the Munsif of Haveli was made, on December 2nd, 1898, and the application, out of which this appeal arises, was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Haveli on February 15th, 1909, that is twelve years after the date of the decree. The judgment-debtor resisted the application on the ground that it was barred by the twelve years' rate of limitation. The Court of first instance gave effect to that plea and rejected the application for execution. On appeal, the order of the first Court was confirmed by the Court of first appeal. In second appeal, it is argued that the application for execution was in continuation of the application for transfer and that, therefore, it was not barred by time. We, in Khetpal Singh v. Tikam Singh 9 A.L.J. 365 : 14 Ind. Cas. 172 held that an application for execution cannot be an application in continuation of an application for transfer, and that the latter is not an application for execution. The present case is exactly on all fours with the case mentioned. In addition to the rulings cited in that case, there are two rulings of the Calcutta High Court reported as Nilmony Singh Deo v. Biressur Banerjee 16 C. 744 and Suja Hosiein v. Monohur Das 22 C. 921 which are in favour of the view we take. For the above reason's, we hold that the view taken by the learned District Judge is quite right, and we dismiss the appeal with costs.


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