Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)
Documents citing Lachhoo vs Firm Munni Lal-Babu Lal on 5 October, 1934

Bansraj Pandey vs Ram Lal Pandey And Anr. on 14 December, 1938

14. In the case before us, as we have shown above, the purchase was before the attachment in point of fact took place. Reference has also been made by learned Counsel for tin; respondent to the case in Lachhoo v. Firm Munni Lal Babu Lal (1935) 22 A.I.R. All. 183. In that case however the original judgment-debtor had died and the appellant Lachhoo had been brought on the record as his legal representative, and had thus become the judgment-debtor. The case is therefore distinguishable. For the reasons given above we allow this second appeal, and setting aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court restore that of the Court of first instance. The appellant shall have his costs throughout.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Swarup vs Mst. Kalawati on 4 January, 1951

In support of this plea several cases have been cited before me --'Seth Chand Mal v. Durga Dei', 12 All 313 (FB) (A); -- 'Lachhoo v. Firm Munni Lal Babu Lal', AIR 1935 All 183 (B) and -- 'Badri Prasad v. Mt. Janki', AIR 1937 All 97 (C). In all these cases, however, it was held that the dispute as to the ownership of the property sought to be sold by the decree-holder, between the legal representative of the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder, is a matter which fell to be decided under Section 47, and was not a matter which fell under Order 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. There can be no dispute about the proposition of law stated in all these cases. This, however, does not solve the difficulty. Even if the matter did not fall under Order 21, Rule 58 but fell under Section 47, C. P. C. the court has still a discretion in fit cases whether it will decide the precise question raised between the parties or leave it to future proceedings. When it is admitted by the legal representative that the property does indeed belong to the deceased judgment debtor and the only claim made by the legal, representative in her personal capacity is that he or she holds a charge on the property created by the deceased judgment debtor, it is discretionary with the Court to decide or not to decide the question whether the charge is fictitious or genuine.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1