AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Wort, J.—However mach I may be opposed to the particular system of execution which is adopted in this case or sympathy which I may have for the applicant, I can give her no assistance in this application.
It is contended that the learned Munsif acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the claim under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8 to have the house of Musammat Sundar Koer released from attachment. The facts are that the lady lives with her sons, she being a widow, in the house which has been attached. Evidence was adduced by the applicant to prove her possession which was the question which had to be considered under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Munsif has decided that the presumption arising on the facts of the case was that the male members were the owners of the house. It was impossible for the Munsif to determine the question before him having regard to the circumstances of the case, without going into the question of title. It is true that possession was the only question, but as I say the circumstances necessitated his determining who was the real owner; he bas dismissed the applicant''s application. The contention is that he has exceeded his jurisdiction because he has decided this question of who was in possession wrongly. That argument cannot possibly be sustained, otherwise there is no reason why every application in civil revision should not be granted where a Munsif or other Judge has decided a question of fact or law erroneously. The learned Munsif was entitled to come to the conclusion at which he has arrived; his decision may be wrong, but he had jurisdiction to decide the case and has decided it.
The application must be rejected with costs. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.
The stay order is discharged.