Taj Singh Vs Jagan Lal

Allahabad High Court 11 Feb 1916 AIR 1916 All 219(1) : 35 Ind. Cas. 234
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Hon'ble Bench

Walsh, J; Piggott, J

Final Decision

Dismissed

Acts Referred

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 16

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. There was a decree passed nominally in favour of one Dale Ram. The respondent Jagan Lal, in the course of a suit against Dule Ram''s heirs,

obtained a decree to the effect that he was himself the beneficial owner of the decree. Having applied to the proper Court for that purpose, be

obtained an order under Order XXI, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure, granting him permission to execute the decree as transferee of the

same. Before that order was passed the present appellant, who was on the record as one of the judgment debtors, had received notice of Jagan

Lal''s application. He took no objection to the same and submitted to the order granting the said application. Subsequently Jagan Lal applied to the

Court to take certain steps to execute the decree by sale of the property concerned. Thereupon the appellant filed an objection in which he said,

first, that Jagan Lal was not a genuine transferee of the decree, because the whole proceedings between Jagan Lal and the heirs of Dule Ram were

collusive and were not binding on him. On this the Court below has held that this was an objection which should have been taken in reply to Jagan

Lal''s application under Order XXI, Rule 16, and not having been so taken, it was concluded against the present appellant by the order of the

Court bringing Jagan Lal on the record as transferee of the decree. This decision is supported by a ruling of this Court in Oman Prasad v. Jani

Durlab Shankar 23 Ind. Cas. 286 : 12 A.L.J. 206 with which we are in agreement. The other point taken by the appellant was that there had been

an adjustment of the decree, so far as he himself was concerned, between himself and Dule Ram during the lifetime of the latter. On this the Court

below has held that this adjustment, never having been certified to the Court, cannot be recognised by the Court executing the decree. This order is

in accordance with the clear provisions of Order XXI, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and we find it to be correct. This appeal, therefore,

fails and we dismiss it with costs.

From The Blog
SC: Written Arrest Grounds Mandatory, Oral Explanation Insufficient
Oct
18
2025

Story

SC: Written Arrest Grounds Mandatory, Oral Explanation Insufficient
Read More
SC Raps Insurers for Unnecessary Appeals, Delaying Payouts
Oct
18
2025

Story

SC Raps Insurers for Unnecessary Appeals, Delaying Payouts
Read More