High CourtsDivision Bench(1925) 06 BOM CK 0005

Pandu Joti Kadam vs Savla Piraji Kate

Bombay High Court · Decided on 24 June 1925 · Citation: AIR 1925 Bom 172 : (1925) 27 BOMLR 1109

HON’BLE JUDGES
Norman Macleod, J · Coyajee, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Second Appeal No. 203 of 1924

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

2 paragraphs · 161 words

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.—We think that the decision of the Subordinate Judge was right, and that the authority relied upon by the Assistant Judge has no application. The applicant at the time he presented the darkhast had no title to the decree which he sought to execute. He had only a right under his own decree to obtain an assignment from the decree-holder of the other decree. The applicant was given time by the Sub ordinate Judge to cite any authority to support his proposition. He failed to do so. There in no authority that we know of which lays down that a darkhastdar, who has no title whatever to execute the decree at the time of the darkhast, can remedy the defect by completing the title after the date of the darkhust, and then try to execute the decree by virtue of that title.

2.

We allow the appeal and restore the decree of the Subordinate Judge with costs throughout.