Skip to content


Bhola Nath and anr. Vs. Ram Sahai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in71Ind.Cas.472
AppellantBhola Nath and anr.
RespondentRam Sahai
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - wrong decision on question of law--revision. - - the question which the court below had to consider was whether this was a good payment or whether the plaintiff who had not received his share of the price was entitled to sue the applicants for it in spite of the payment made to musammat ganeshi. has decided it to the best of his ability is sufficient to bring a case within the provisions of section 115. on this ground i dismiss the application......the suit was one to recover the price of potatoes. the applicants obtained certain potatoes from musammat ganeshi and ram sahai. there was a dispute between these two as to the ownership of the potatoes but it has been found that they really belonged to both jointly. in view of the dispute the applicants sent a money-order addressing to both as payees but the money was actually taken by musammat ganeshi alone. the question which the court below had to consider was whether this was a good payment or whether the plaintiff who had not received his share of the price was entitled to sue the applicants for it in spite of the payment made to musammat ganeshi. the learned judge applied his mind to this question and decided, though in view of section 38 of the contract act it appears to me.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, for revision of an appellate order of the District Judge of Furrukhabad in a case in which no second appeal lay. The suit was one to recover the price of potatoes. The applicants obtained certain potatoes from Musammat Ganeshi and Ram Sahai. There was a dispute between these two as to the ownership of the potatoes but it has been found that they really belonged to both jointly. In view of the dispute the applicants sent a money-order addressing to both as payees but the money was actually taken by Musammat Ganeshi alone. The question which the Court below had to consider was whether this was a good payment or whether the plaintiff who had not received his share of the price was entitled to sue the applicants for it in spite of the payment made to Musammat Ganeshi. The learned Judge applied his mind to this question and decided, though in view of Section 38 of the Contract Act it appears to me that he decided wrongly, that the plaintiff, Ram Sahai, was entitled to recover his half share of the amount. The case is a hard one for the applicants, but I am bound to hold on the preliminary objection of the respondent that there was no material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction which would bring the case within Section 115. It has never been held that a wrong decision on a pure question of law when the learned Judge has applied his mind to the question and. has decided it to the best of his ability is sufficient to bring a case within the provisions of Section 115. On this ground I dismiss the application. Under the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs.


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