Murari Singh Vs. Pryag Singh and ors.

Murari Singh vs Pryag Singh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 17, 1885

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/868185

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/868185
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Mitter and ;Trevelyan, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 17, 1885
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Execution - Sale in execution of decree--Suit for possession against auction-purchaser by setting aside sale--Civil Procedure Code (Act X of 1877) Section 244. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murari Singh

Respondent

Pryag Singh and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Jan Ali v. Jan Ali Chowdhry
Reported In: (1885)ILR11Cal362

Excerpt

execution - sale in execution of decree--suit for possession against auction-purchaser by setting aside sale--civil procedure code (act x of 1877) section 244. - mitter and trevelyan, jj.1. we are of opinion that the appeal in this ease must fail. without expressing any opinion upon the question whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation, we think that upon the facts admitted in this case the plaintiff is not entitled to have a decree setting aside the sale. we think that the ruling in jan ali v. jan ali chowdhry 10 w.b. 154 will govern this case.2. there was an order by mr. drummond which, under section 244 of the code of civil procedure, had the force of a decree directing the sale of the property in dispute, and in execution the property in dispute was sold and purchased by a person who was not a party to the suit. that decree was subsequently set aside.3. according to the authority referred to above, this will not entitle the plaintiff to bring a suit to set aside the sale. that being so, we think that the judgment of the lower courts dismissing plaintiff's suit is correct.4. we dismiss this appeal with coats.

Full Judgment

Mitter and Trevelyan, JJ.

1. We are of opinion that the appeal in this ease must fail. Without expressing any opinion upon the question whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation, we think that upon the facts admitted in this case the plaintiff is not entitled to have a decree setting aside the sale. We think that the ruling in Jan Ali v. Jan Ali Chowdhry 10 W.B. 154 will govern this case.

2. There was an order by Mr. Drummond which, under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had the force of a decree directing the sale of the property in dispute, and in execution the property in dispute was sold and purchased by a person who was not a party to the suit. That decree was subsequently set aside.

3. According to the authority referred to above, this will not entitle the plaintiff to bring a suit to set aside the sale. That being so, we think that the judgment of the lower Courts dismissing plaintiff's suit is correct.

4. We dismiss this appeal with coats.

Same Parties Murari Singh vs Pryag Singh and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Mitter and ;Trevelyan, JJ.

Civil