Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Kashinath Rudrappa Regal vs Ramaya Rajana Pali on 23 January, 1936

Gopaldas Hiralal Marwadi vs Mahadu Dagdu Patil on 24 June, 1942

Similarly the full bench decision in Kashinath Rudrappa v. Ramaya , F.B., which follows the decision in Mancherji v. Thakordas (1906) I.L.R. 31 Bom. 120, s.c. 8 Bom. L.R. 963, is also not against the series of decisions mentioned above. In our opinion, it is established that in the case of a mortgage decree under Section 15B it is not necessary to apply for a final decree. The present decree is a composite decree inasmuch as it provides for the payment of the mortgage amount and sale of the mortgaged property in default of payment of installments and it also directs personal remedy in case of deficit. It is clear, in our opinion, that after this decree, all further steps are to be taken in execution. If attachment of any property is prayed for after the decree, it would be governed by the provisions of Section 51 under which the executing Court can order attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property. An application for attachment only without sale which can be made before judgment under Order XXXVIII cannot be made in execution.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1