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.

Chet Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Singh and ors.

Chet Ram and ors. vs Ram Singh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 26, 1921
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/472906

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Order XLV, Rule 13(d) - Decree of High Court--Appeal to Privy Council--Decree executed and possession obtained--Proceedings in Revenue Court to eject judgment-debtor--High Court, power of, to stay. - - Moreover, it has been pointed out that after the delivery of possession the...

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chet Ram and ors.

Respondent

Ram Singh and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
64Ind.Cas.152

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xlv, rule 13(d) - decree of high court--appeal to privy council--decree executed and possession obtained--proceedings in revenue court to eject judgment-debtor--high court, power of, to stay. - - moreover, it has been pointed out that after the delivery of possession the decree was struck off as being satisfied and the decree-holders got mutation of names effected.1. this is an application that further execution may be stayed in a matter which is now under appeal to his majesty in council. the suit was an ordinary suit for possession of land, and a bench of this court decreed the plaintiffs' claim in full on the 11th of march 1919. towards the end of that year execution proceedings were commenced and formal possession obtained in january of 1920. following on that delivery of possession, suits were instituted in the revenue court to eject the appellants to his majesty in council from certain sir and khudkasht lands. the applicant here prays that those proceedings may be stayed, be being willing to be put upon terms. he has not shown us, in our opinion that there is any special cause which differentiates this case from all those cases in which as the result of an appeal, or as the result of a decision in an original action, one man is dispossessed in favour of another. moreover, it has been pointed out that after the delivery of possession the decree was struck off as being satisfied and the decree-holders got mutation of names effected. in our view the proceedings in the revenue court do not really some within proceedings under the execution of the decree but are (sic) on the decree of the high court and the fact that delivery of possession was obtained. in these circumstances we are of opinion that the matter has not been brought within order xlv, rule 13, clause (d), and that the application must be and hereby is rejected with costs and fees on the higher scale.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application that further execution may be stayed in a matter which is now under appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was an ordinary suit for possession of land, and a Bench of this Court decreed the plaintiffs' claim in full on the 11th of March 1919. Towards the end of that year execution proceedings were commenced and formal possession obtained in January of 1920. Following on that delivery of possession, suits were instituted in the Revenue Court to eject the appellants to His Majesty in Council from certain sir and khudkasht lands. The applicant here prays that those proceedings may be stayed, be being willing to be put upon terms. He has not shown us, in our opinion that there is any special cause which differentiates this case from all those cases in which as the result of an appeal, or as the result of a decision in an original action, one man is dispossessed in favour of another. Moreover, it has been pointed out that after the delivery of possession the decree was struck off as being satisfied and the decree-holders got mutation of names effected. In our view the proceedings in the Revenue Court do not really some within proceedings under the execution of the decree but are (sic) on the decree of the High Court and the fact that delivery of possession was obtained. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the matter has not been brought within Order XLV, Rule 13, Clause (d), and that the application must be and hereby is rejected with costs and fees on the higher scale.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial