Skip to content


Ram Lakhan Das and ors. Vs. Shankar Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All289; 43Ind.Cas.519
AppellantRam Lakhan Das and ors.
RespondentShankar Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 182 - execution--mortgage decree--application omitting to describe guardian of minor as such, whether application in accordance with law. - .....was obtained against a number of persons one of whom was a minor, his guardian being one of the adult defendants. an application was made for execution, in which all the defendants were named but the minor defendant was not described as a minor nor was the adult (who in fact has been his guardian ad litem) described as such. if notwithstanding that defect, that application can be paid to be an application for execution 'in accordance with law', admittedly the present application is within time and is not barred by limitation. notice of the first application to which we have referred was issued to all the persons mentioned in the application, including of course the guardian of the minor although he was not described as guardian. we think that this application was an application 'in.....
Judgment:

1. The point for decision in this case is a very short one. A mortgage decree was obtained against a number of persons one of whom was a minor, his guardian being one of the adult defendants. An application was made for execution, in which all the defendants were named but the minor defendant was not described as a minor nor was the adult (who in fact has been his guardian ad litem) described as such. If notwithstanding that defect, that application can be paid to be an application for execution 'in accordance with law', admittedly the present application is within time and is not barred by limitation. Notice of the first application to which we have referred was issued to all the persons mentioned in the application, including of course the guardian of the minor although he was not described as guardian. We think that this application was an application 'in accordance with law' within the meaning of Article 182. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below and restore the order of the Court of first instance with costs in both Courts.


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