Gyamonee Vs. Radha Romon

Gyamonee vs Radha Romon

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 04, 1879

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/868278

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/868278
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Morris and ;Prinsep, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 04, 1879
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Execution of Decree - Order on questions arising between Co-decree-holders not appealable--Civil Procedure Code (Act X of 1877) Section 344, Article (c), 588. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gyamonee

Respondent

Radha Romon

Legal References

Reported In: (1880)ILR5Cal592

Excerpt

execution of decree - order on questions arising between co-decree-holders not appealable--civil procedure code (act x of 1877) section 344, article (c), 588. - morris, j.1. the preliminary objection taken, that no appeal lies against the order of the subordinate judge in this case, must prevail. clearly, since a decree-holder under the act includes any person to whom a decree is transferred, and by inference any person to whom a share in a decree is transferred, the question raised is a question as between two co-decree-holders. this court is not called upon now to determine whether radha romon was brought rightly or wrongly on the record as a party, and allowed to take out execution. it must be taken that he has been rightly allowed. this then being so, we consider that the provision of clause (c) section 244, act x of 1877, does not apply to such a case as this. there is no question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives. this is practically a difference only between one decree-holder and another decree-holder.2. the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Morris, J.

1. The preliminary objection taken, that no appeal lies against the order of the Subordinate Judge in this case, must prevail. Clearly, since a decree-holder under the Act includes any person to whom a decree is transferred, and by inference any person to whom a share in a decree is transferred, the question raised is a question as between two co-decree-holders. This Court is not called upon now to determine whether Radha Romon was brought rightly or wrongly on the record as a party, and allowed to take out execution. It must be taken that he has been rightly allowed. This then being so, we consider that the provision of Clause (c) Section 244, Act X of 1877, does not apply to such a case as this. There is no question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives. This is practically a difference only between one decree-holder and another decree-holder.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Gyamonee vs Radha Romon Same Subject Civil Same Judge Morris and ;Prinsep, JJ.

Civil