Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mulchand Dagdu Vs. Govind Gopal Kulkarni

Mulchand Dagdu vs Govind Gopal Kulkarni

Disposition Application allowed Court Mumbai Decided Jul 25, 1906
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/336708

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Application No. 61 of 1905
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) Chapter XIX, Section 310A -Attachment -Private sale-Court sale-Application to set aside Court sale.;Section 310 A of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) is applicable to a purchaser subsequent to attachment and prior to sale under that attachment.;Where there has been a ...

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mulchand Dagdu

Respondent

Govind Gopal Kulkarni

Legal References

Reported In
(1906)8BOMLR578

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) chapter xix, section 310a -attachment -private sale-court sale-application to set aside court sale.;section 310 a of the civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) is applicable to a purchaser subsequent to attachment and prior to sale under that attachment.;where there has been a subsequent sale following on the attachment a person answering this description is one whose immoveable property has been sold under chapter xix of the code. - - 4. in deciding otherwise the learned judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him.lawrence jenkins, k.c.i.e., c.j.1. this is an application to us under section 122 of the civil procedure code.2. the only question is whether the subordinate judge has committed an error within the scope of that section in holding that section 310a of the civil procedure code was not applicable to a purchaser subsequent to attachment and prior to sale under that attachment.3. in our opinion, where there has been a subsequent sale following on the attachment, a person answering this description is one whose immoveable property has been sold under the chapter.4. in deciding otherwise the learned judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him.5. the decision of the learned judge that the parties should determine the matters at issue between them in a suit under section 310a is, in our opinion, erroneous.6. the rule is, therefore, made absolute; and the case must be sent back to the subordinate court for determination in the light of these remarks.7. costs will follow the result.

Full Judgment

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. This is an application to us under Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The only question is whether the Subordinate Judge has committed an error within the scope of that section in holding that Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to a purchaser subsequent to attachment and prior to sale under that attachment.

3. In our opinion, where there has been a subsequent sale following on the attachment, a person answering this description is one whose immoveable property has been sold under the Chapter.

4. In deciding otherwise the learned Judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him.

5. The decision of the learned Judge that the parties should determine the matters at issue between them in a suit under Section 310A is, in our opinion, erroneous.

6. The rule is, therefore, made absolute; and the case must be sent back to the Subordinate Court for determination in the light of these remarks.

7. Costs will follow the result.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial