Skip to content


Balwant Singh Vs. Har Jas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All27
AppellantBalwant Singh
RespondentHar Jas
Excerpt:
- - , the plaintiff in the present suit, was informed that this compromise had been entered into between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors and, therefore, he made over the property to the judgment-debtors in good faith......under the orders of the court against the judgment-debtors primarily, but he also impleaded the decree-holder and asked that the relief should be given against whichever defendant the court thought fit. the court found that a compromise had been entered into between the decree-holder and two of the judgment-debtors. the terms of the compromise as found by the court were that these judgment-debtors paid rs. 75 to the decree-holder for their share of the decretal money and that the crops attached were released to the extent of that share. the court found that the supraddar, viz., the plaintiff in the present suit, was informed that this compromise had been entered into between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors and, therefore, he made over the property to the judgment-debtors in.....
Judgment:

King, J.

1. One Balwant Singh, decree-holder in execution of his decree against Nawal Singh and others, attached the crops of the judgment-debtors and the crops were made over to Harjas, the plaintiff-respondent as Supraddar. When the amin went to sell the crops it was found that they had been made over to the judgment-debtors. The execution Court then took proceedings against Harjas as Supraddar for misconduct in permitting the attached property to be made over to the judgment-debtors without the order of the Court. The execution Court finding that Harjas had acted improperly in allowing the attached property to be made over to the judgment-debtors ordered him to deposit Rs. 75 in Court.

2. Harjas then filed a suit to recover Rs. 75 which he had been made to deposit under the orders of the Court against the judgment-debtors primarily, but he also impleaded the decree-holder and asked that the relief should be given against whichever defendant the Court thought fit. The Court found that a compromise had been entered into between the decree-holder and two of the judgment-debtors. The terms of the compromise as found by the Court were that these judgment-debtors paid Rs. 75 to the decree-holder for their share of the decretal money and that the crops attached were released to the extent of that share. The Court found that the supraddar, viz., the plaintiff in the present suit, was informed that this compromise had been entered into between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors and, therefore, he made over the property to the judgment-debtors in good faith. Subsequently the decree-holder played false and realized Rs. 75 firstly from Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and secondly from the Supraddar through the order of the Court.

3. The Court finding that the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had already paid up their amount of the decree, passed a decree for Rs. 75 against the decree-holder only.

4. The chief ground argued before me in revision is that this suit was not cognisable by the Small Cause Court. Under Clause 2 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, a suit concerning an act purporting to be done by any person in pursuance of a judgment or order of a Court or of a judicial officer acting in the execution of his office is excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. This suit undoubtedly doss concern an act done by the plaintiff in pursuance of an order of a Court. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 75 in Court by order of that Court and this suit is to recover Rs. 75 from the judgment-debtors or from the decree-holder, owing to whose conduct the plaintiff was compelled to deposit that sum. I think, it is impossible to deny that this suit is excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes under Clause 2 of the second schedule. On this view it is unnecessary to consider further whether the Court was right or wrong in passing a decree against the decree-holder only or whether the decree was in any way improper or unjust.

5. On the finding that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this suit, I allow the application and set aside the decree of the Court below. The application is allowed with costs.


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