Skip to content


Thomas Souza Vs. Gulam MoidIn Beari, Purchaser from and Representative of the Judgment-debtor and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1903)13MLJ214
AppellantThomas Souza
RespondentGulam MoidIn Beari, Purchaser from and Representative of the Judgment-debtor and anr.
Cases ReferredThakur Pershad v. Sheik Fakirullah
Excerpt:
- .....civil procedure code, applications for execution of decrees are proceedings in suits. this, the privy council says in thakur pershad v. sheik fakirullah 22 i.a. 44 is a mere statement of what was the law. the application upon which this decree was passed was an appeal against a decree or order in execution of the decree under section 9 of the specific relief act and therefore there was no appeal.2. again on the merits it appears to us that the decision is wrong. the plaintiff obtained a decree for possession and was entitled to possession as from the date of the decree at least, at that time the crops were standing and the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land and what was on it. the land was cultivated by a trespasser who after the decree sold the growing crops to the present.....
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the decree of the District Judge is wrong and must be reversed. The suit was brought under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act (Act I of 1877). By the last clause of that section ' no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit under this section,' etc. According to the explanation to Section 647 of the Civil Procedure Code, applications for execution of decrees are proceedings in suits. This, the Privy Council says in Thakur Pershad v. Sheik Fakirullah 22 I.A. 44 is a mere statement of what was the law. The application upon which this decree was passed was an appeal against a decree or order in execution of the decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore there was no appeal.

2. Again on the merits it appears to us that the decision is wrong. The plaintiff obtained a decree for possession and was entitled to possession as from the date of the decree at least, At that time the crops were standing and the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land and what was on it. The land was cultivated by a trespasser who after the decree sold the growing crops to the present applicant. We are unable to discover any right either in law or in equity which can entitle the applicant to an order deferring the handing over of the land to the plaintiff until the growing crops have been gathered by the applicant.

3. The decree of the District Judge is reversed and that of the District Munsif is restored with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.


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