Skip to content


Ramji Das and anr. Vs. Lala Chhagan Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All282; 69Ind.Cas.745
AppellantRamji Das and anr.
RespondentLala Chhagan Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
execution, of decree - sale--injunction restraining sale--injunction not served on decree-holder and officer conducting sale--sale, validity of. - - on the 29th of january 1919 bankey lal informed the executing court that his decree had been satisfied in full. the munsif passed an order that the execution application should be struck off as the decree had been satisfied in full and that the sale of the enclosure to chhagan lal should be set aside. i doubt whether any appeal lies to this court under the provisions of section 104, but apart from that this appeal must fail on the merits an appeal certainly lay to the subordinate judge under order xliii. now, there is nothing to show that at the time the sale took place the decree had been satisfied. from the dates it would appear that the..........the injunction was not served on bankey lal and no notice was given to the officer conducting the sale. bankey lal having received no notice and the officer having received no notice, the sale took place on the 11th of january 1919 and the enclosure was purchased by chhagan lal. on the 29th of january 1919 bankey lal informed the executing court that his decree had been satisfied in full. the munsif passed an order that the execution application should be struck off as the decree had been satisfied in full and that the sale of the enclosure to chhagan lal should be set aside. tim order was reversed by the learned subordinate judge on appeal. ramji das appeals here. i doubt whether any appeal lies to this court under the provisions of section 104, but apart from that this appeal must.....
Judgment:

Stuart, J.

1. Bankey Lal held a simple money-decree against Ramji Das and Janki Das, dated the 20th of May 1912. In execution of this decree he attached an enclosure. The 11th of January 1919 was fixed for the sale of the enclosure. In the meantime certain third parties brought a regular suit against Bankey Lal for a declaration that the enclosure was their property, In the course of this regular suit a temporary injunction was issued in favour of those third parties restraining Bankey Lal from bringing the enclosure in question to sale. That injunction was waned on the 6th of January 1919, bat notice of the injunction was not served on Bankey Lal and no notice was given to the officer conducting the sale. Bankey Lal having received no notice and the officer having received no notice, the sale took place on the 11th of January 1919 and the enclosure was purchased by Chhagan Lal. On the 29th of January 1919 Bankey Lal informed the Executing Court that his decree had been satisfied in full. The Munsif passed an order that the execution application should be struck off as the decree had been satisfied in full and that the sale of the enclosure to Chhagan Lal should be set aside. Tim order was reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal. Ramji Das appeals here. I doubt whether any appeal lies to this Court under the provisions of Section 104, but apart from that this appeal must fail on the merits An appeal certainly lay to the Subordinate Judge under Order XLIII. Rule 1 (i), for the Munsif's order was apparently under Order XXI, Rule 92. True, the order cannot be' supported under Order XXI, Rule 92 the Munsif apparently considered that he was acting under the authority of that rule. Now, there is nothing to show that at the time the sale took place the decree had been satisfied. From the dates it would appear that the decree was satisfied by payment from Bankey Lal after the 11th of January 1919. The validity of the sale to Chhagen Lal cannot be questioned on the ground that an injunction had been issued for Bankey Lal had received no notice of that injunction and the officer conducting the sale bad received no notice The injunction was thus not effective The case stands thus that the sale was a perfectly good sale as far as Chhagan Lal was concerned and he is in no way prejudced by the issue of the injunction or by what happened subsequent to the date of sale It is not necessary for me to express an opinion as to whether Ramji Das or Janki Das have any cause of action as against Bankey Lal, but in any circumstance the purchase-money for the enclosure cannot be taken by Bankey Lal, as his decree has been satisfied otherwise. That purchase-money should be paid to Ramji Das and Janki Das. I dismiss this appeal with costs which will include fees oft the higher scale.


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