Skip to content


Bishwanath Singh Vs. Dasrath Dube - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in100Ind.Cas.726
AppellantBishwanath Singh
RespondentDasrath Dube
Cases ReferredFazal Rab v. Manzur Ahmad
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 89 - execution of decree--sale of non--ancestral property by collector--application to set aside sale on payment--court, proper. - 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......till more than a month after the sale. the executing court held that this was not a sufficient deposit under rule 89 of order xxi, and this finding was upheld in appeal. both the courts exercised jurisdiction vested in them. they decided that the court mentioned in rule 89 of order xxi 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 of the civil procedure code.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.....
Judgment:

1. The matter is covered by authority of a Bench of this Court, Fazal Rab v. Manzur Ahmad 45 Ind. Cas. 773 : 40 A. 425 : 16 A.L.J. 433. 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 of Order XXI, and this finding was upheld in appeal. Both the Courts exercised jurisdiction vested in them. They decided that the Court mentioned in Rule 89 of Order XXI 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 of the Civil Procedure Code.

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 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Our attention was drawn to a Bench ruling in the case of Abdul Nasar Rashidmuddin Ahmad Khan v. Lalta Prasad 71 Ind. Cas. 1018 : 21 A.L.J. 162 : A.I.R. 1923 All. 315. The facts of that case were peculiar, and in that case the ruling in the case of Fazal Rab v. Manzur Ahmad 45 Ind. Cas. 773 : 40 A. 425 : 16 A.L.J. 433 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 //