9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of directions given by the Supreme Court and the High Court for passing a fresh preliminary decree. 2. Determination of conformity of the fresh preliminary decree with the judgments of the courts. 3. Assessment of the correctness of directions regarding accounting for rents and profits in the preliminary decree. Analysis: 1. The appeal stemmed from a fresh preliminary decree issued by the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, following directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court in previous appeals and revisions. The appellants contested the decree's handling of interest and accounting matters, leading to extensive arguments before the Civil Judge. 2. The Civil Judge determined that the appellants were entitled to interest accrued before March 13, 1950, but not exceeding the amount claimed in the plaint. Additionally, the appellants were directed to provide accounts of property receipts from August 10, 1950, till possession handover. The Judge also specified interest on the principal amount and linked it to the submission of property receipt accounts, aligning with the court directives. 3. The appellants challenged the decree, arguing that it deviated from the Supreme Court's judgment, but the Civil Judge and subsequent revision dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the decree was in line with the court judgments. However, a discrepancy was identified regarding the direction for accounting rents, as it contradicted a recent judgment. Consequently, the decree was modified to align with the court's rulings, substituting dates for accuracy and dismissing the appeal with costs. This detailed analysis highlights the court's meticulous consideration of the directions, conformity with judgments, and necessary modifications to ensure legal accuracy in the preliminary decree.
|
