Skip to content


Sheo Gholam Sahoo Vs. Rahut Hossein - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Limitation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1879)ILR4Cal7
AppellantSheo Gholam Sahoo
RespondentRahut Hossein
Excerpt:
limitation - money or moveable property deposited in court to stay a sale in execution of a decree--order for sale confirmed--no execution taken out within three years after deposit. - ainslie, j.1. if the money and property was sufficient for the satisfaction of the decree, it was not necessary for any further proceedings to be taken in execution. so far as the money is concerned, when the appeal was dismissed, it must be taken to have been transferred to the credit of the decree-holder, and the court should similarly deal with the jewels pledged, converting them into cash for his benefit.2. the district judge reversed the order of the first court on the ground that the decree was barred by limitation, but we are of opinion that no question of limitation arises.3. the appeal must be decreed with costs, and the order of the court of first instance restored.
Judgment:

Ainslie, J.

1. If the money and property was sufficient for the satisfaction of the decree, it was not necessary for any further proceedings to be taken in execution. So far as the money is concerned, when the appeal was dismissed, it must be taken to have been transferred to the credit of the decree-holder, and the Court should similarly deal with the jewels pledged, converting them into cash for his benefit.

2. The District Judge reversed the order of the first Court on the ground that the decree was barred by limitation, but we are of opinion that no question of limitation arises.

3. The appeal must be decreed with costs, and the order of the Court of first instance restored.


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