Skip to content


Biswanath Singh Vs. Dasrath Dube - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All754
AppellantBiswanath Singh
RespondentDasrath Dube
Excerpt:
- .....till more than a month after the sale. the executing court held that this was not a sufficient deposit under rule 89, order 21, and this finding was upheld in appeal. both the courts exercised jurisdiction vested in them. they decided that the court mentioned in rule 89, order 21 was a civil court and not the court of the collector or the sale officer where sale proceedings took place. both the courts had jurisdiction to arrive at such a decision. we cannot, therefore, interfere under section 115, civil p.c.2. it is true that if the property had been ancestral, the matter would have been different, because in that case the deposit in the collector's court would have been a proper deposit under rule 30 of the rules framed by government under sections 68 and 70, civil p.c. 3. our.....
Judgment:

1. The matter is covered by authority of a Bench of this Court, Fazal Rab v. Manzur Ahmad (1918) 40 All. 425. The judgment-debtor's property, which was non-ancestral, was auctioned by the Collector on a reference by the civil Court, because it was revenue-paying property. Within thirty days of the sale the judgment-debtor deposited the decretal amount with the necessary additions in the Collector's Court in order to get the sale set aside. The Collector had no authority in the matter. The money was deposited in the treasury and the Collector sent an intimation to the civil Court. The money was not deposited in the civil Court till more than a month after the sale. The executing Court held that this was not a sufficient deposit under Rule 89, Order 21, and this finding was upheld in appeal. Both the Courts exercised jurisdiction vested in them. They decided that the Court mentioned in Rule 89, Order 21 was a civil Court and not the Court of the Collector or the Sale Officer where sale proceedings took place. Both the Courts had jurisdiction to arrive at such a decision. We cannot, therefore, interfere under Section 115, Civil P.C.

2. It is true that if the property had been ancestral, the matter would have been different, because in that case the deposit in the Collector's Court would have been a proper deposit under Rule 30 of the rules framed by Government under Sections 68 and 70, Civil P.C.

3. Our attention was drawn to a Bench ruling in the case of Abdul Nasar Rashiduddin Ahmad Khan v. Lalta Prasad A.I.R. 1923 All. 315. The facts of that case were peculiar, and in that case the ruling in the case of Fazul Rab v. Manzur Ahmad (1918) 40 All. 425 was distinguished and not dissented from.

4. We dismiss the revision application but make no order as to costs.


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