Bombay High Court
Krishnaji Janardan vs Murrarrav And Narsingrav on 7 July, 1887
Equivalent citations: (1888)ILR 12BOM48
JUDGMENT Charles Sargent, C.J.
1. The Acting Judge would appear to have treated the application as one to place Murrarrav and Narsingrav on the record for the purpose of executing the decree against them. In holding that they were not the heirs or representatives of Vithalrav he was clearly right, but he proceeds to consider whether they could now be placed on the record as heirs of Yashvantrav, or otherwise we do not understand how the question of limitation could arise. He says, and rightly, that they were every bit as much as Vithalrav necessary parties to the darkhast of 1878, and concludes that not having been made parties it is now too late to proceed against them. We agree, however, with the ruling in Ram Anuj Sewak Singh v. Hingu Lal I.L.R., 3 All., 517 that the application for execution against one of the representatives of a sole judgment-debtor saves limitation against another representative. The application would not, therefore, be too late as against Murrarrav and Narsingrav regarded as joint representatives with Vithalrav of the original Judgment-debtor, Yashvantrav.
2. We must, therefore, discharge the order, and send back the case for a fresh decision, having regard to the third issue, which is to be understood as including the question whether the mortgage was valid beyond Yashvantravs life-time, and, if so, whether it was for a legitimate purpose so as to bind his sons. Costs to abide the result.