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.

Sarvi Begam Vs. Taj Begam

Sarvi Begam vs Taj Begam

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 29, 1914
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/453244

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
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code (1908), Order XXI, Rules 35, 95 and 96 - Execution of decree--Purchase of undivided share in a house---Resistance to possession by judgment-debtor-Remedy to which purchaser is entitled. - - But this rule has clearly no application to the facts of the present case.

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sarvi Begam

Respondent

Taj Begam

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1914All511(1); (1914)ILR36All181

Excerpt

civil procedure code (1908), order xxi, rules 35, 95 and 96 - execution of decree--purchase of undivided share in a house---resistance to possession by judgment-debtor-remedy to which purchaser is entitled. - - but this rule has clearly no application to the facts of the present case.ryves and piggott, jj.1. the appellant musammat sarvi begam purchased at auction the right of musammat taj begam, which amounted to a specified undivided share (136 out of 192 sihams in a certain house. the rest of the house belonged to musammat sahibzadi begam, who is not a party to this proceeding. the judgment-debtor, musammat taj begam, seems to have been endeavouring to obstruct musammat sarvi begam and to prevent he from obtaining effective possession of what she purchased. the court below has ordered possession to he given under order xxi, rule 96 of the code of civil procedure. but this rule has clearly no application to the facts of the present case. musammat sarvi begam entitled to effective possession of what she purchased, namely, the undivided share belonging to musammat taj begam aforesaid the provisions of order xxi, rule 95, may be read with those of order xxi, rule 35, clause (2), whenever it is a question of giving effective possession of an undivided share either to a decree-holder or to an auction-purchaser under a decree. we amend the order of the court below by directing that actual possession be given to the appellant, musammat sarvi begum, in accordance with the provisions of order xxi, rules 35 and 95. the appellant will get her coats of this appeal.

Full Judgment

Ryves and Piggott, JJ.

1. The appellant Musammat Sarvi Begam purchased at auction the right of Musammat Taj Begam, which amounted to a specified undivided share (136 out of 192 sihams in a certain house. The rest of the house belonged to Musammat Sahibzadi Begam, who is not a party to this proceeding. The judgment-debtor, Musammat Taj Begam, seems to have been endeavouring to obstruct Musammat Sarvi Begam and to prevent he from obtaining effective possession of what she purchased. The court below has ordered possession to he given under order XXI, Rule 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But this rule has clearly no application to the facts of the present case. Musammat Sarvi Begam entitled to effective possession of what she purchased, namely, the undivided share belonging to Musammat Taj Begam aforesaid The provisions of order XXI, Rule 95, may be read with those of Order XXI, Rule 35, Clause (2), whenever it is a question of giving effective possession of an undivided share either to a decree-holder or to an auction-purchaser under a decree. We amend the order of the court below by directing that actual possession be given to the appellant, Musammat Sarvi Begum, in accordance with the provisions of order XXI, rules 35 and 95. The appellant will get her coats of this appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial