CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1996) 05 AHC CK 0014

Nazim Husain vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 3 May 1996 · Citation: (1996) 20 ACR 585

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S.N. Tripathi, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 103 of 1996

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 352 words

G.S.N. Tripathi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This is a criminal revision u/s 397, Code of Criminal Procedure.

3.

A decree was passed u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, in favour of Smt. Shahana Begum, Respondent No. 2. Admittedly, she is the wife of Sablr Husain. In pursuance of the decree, some property was attached as per attachment memo dated 1.8.95 (Annexure II to the petition).

4.

From the report of the attaching officer, it is clear that at the time of attachment. Sabir Husain was not available, rather the residents of the locality informed him that he was residing in Delhi. As regards the ownership of the property Nazim Husain, revisionist, filed an objection before the learned lower court that the property attached, as per attachment memo aforesaid, belongs to him. As against it, Smt. Shahana Begum filed an objection before the learned lower court and she alleged that the property attached was the same property, which was given to her in Dahej. It means that if her statement is accepted that the property belongs to the decree-holder, the decree-holder cannot get her own property attached in execution of the decree. This legal fallacy is quite apparent. Apart from this legal fallacy, there is no evidence on record to prove that the attached property belongs to Sabir Husain, husband of Smt. Shahana Begum. There is statement v. statement regarding the same. Whereas, Smt. Shahana Begum states that the attached property belongs to her husband Sabir Husain, the revisionist Nazim Husain states that it belongs to him. Therefore, there is no credible evidence on the record in proof that the property belongs to judgment-debtor Sabir Husain.

5.

The impugned order dated 18.12.95 is based on surmise and conjectures. There is no legal evidence in support of the same. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned lower court deserves to be set aside.

6.

The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.95 is set aside. Cost easy. The learned lower court shall ensure that the attached property is returned to the revisionist within a period of two months from today.