Skip to content


Bindhiachal Rai and anr. Vs. Sita Ram Misir and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All292; 74Ind.Cas.21
AppellantBindhiachal Rai and anr.
RespondentSita Ram Misir and anr.
Excerpt:
court-fees - mortgage-decree--application for personal decree--appeal--court-fees payable--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxiv, rule 6. - interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute. - 3. the court below must do its best to recover the deficiency from the appellant......of such balance from the debtor, the mortgagee was driven to make an application under order xxxiv, rule 6. the position no doubt was a difficult one but we think that we ought to look at the substance, and an application under order xxxiv, rule 6, was in substance an application for a personal decree of the balance which had been ascertained as a result of the realisation by the sale. that amount could got be finally ascertained until the sale had been confirmed. the view that the court by, law took on the matter of limitation, therefore, was right and the view that our stamp reporter took that this was a regular appeal was also right. the appeal is dismissed with costs including, in this court fees on the higher scale.2. we exempt the respondent from any liability under which he.....
Judgment:

1. We think that, having-regard to the fact that the final decree of November 1915 contained no provision for payment of the balance and for the recovery of such balance from the debtor, the mortgagee was driven to make an application under Order XXXIV, Rule 6. The position no doubt was a difficult one but we think that we ought to look at the substance, and an application under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, was in substance an application for a personal decree of the balance which had been ascertained as a result of the realisation by the sale. That amount could got be finally ascertained until the sale had been confirmed. The view that the Court by, law took on the matter of limitation, therefore, was right and the view that our Stamp Reporter took that this was a regular appeal was also right. The appeal is dismissed with costs including, in this Court fees on the higher scale.

2. We exempt the respondent from any liability under which he may otherwise be for payment of the deficiency in the Court below.

3. The Court below must do its best to recover the deficiency from the appellant.


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