9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property sold. After the execution of the sale deed, the appellant was put into possession of the property and he paid ₹ 3,100/- in three installments. Deojibhai died in 1955 leaving his widow, the respondent, and a son who died subsequently leaving his widow Manibai. Manibai filed a suit in 1956 in the Bombay City Civil Court against Deojiabai, the respondent, claiming a share in the property left by her father-in-law, Deokabhai. This suit was compromised and Deokabai was appointed receiver of the estate of Deojibhai with a direction by the Court to realise his assets and to pay a certain amount to Manibai. Deokabai, the respondent, filed the suit from which the appeal arises, on the basis that the appellant defaulted to pay the ful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusion as Section 12 of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920, which contained the prohibition, had been repealed before the decree was passed. 4. The second point raised by the appellant was that the respondent did not appeal from the decree of the trial court negativing her claim in the suit for a charge on the property. It was contended that the High Court was wrong in granting a decree for enforcement of the charge as the decree of the trial court became final so far as the respondent was concerned as she did not file any appeal therefrom. We are unable to accept this contention. Under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court was competent to pass a decree for the enforcement of the charge in favour of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a charge as, in the lower appellate court the plaintiff had failed to take objection to that part of the trial court's, decree, the High Court held, that under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, the lower appellate court was competent to vary the decree by providing for enforcement of the charge and that the decree passed by it was right. 6. In Gum Ram and Ors. v. Ramji Lal and Ors. (2) the Court said that in Order 41, Rule 33, the expression which ought to have been passed means what ought in law to have been passed and if an appellate court is of the view that any decree which ought in taw to have been passed was in fact not passed by the court below, it may pass or make such further or other decree or order as the justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
