The objection was disallowed by the execution companyrt as well as by the appeal companyrt.
A.I.R. 1938 Mad.
It was held that he was the owner of a half share in the house by virtue of the gift deed from Sava in his favour.
If the respondents son had succeeded in the suit the entire foreclosure decree would have been a scrap of paper for the appellant.
The appellants application fir leave to appeal to a Division Bench under the Letters Patent was rejected by the learned Single Judge.
In other words in the injunction against the decree in suit N. 27A/52 was never raised fully at any time.
To revert to the present execution case out of which this appeal has arisen, the respondent objected to the aforesaid fifth and last execution application on the ground of the same being barred under article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908 his objection was dismissed by the executing companyrt as well as by the Additional District Judge in appeal.
Prakash Chandra also filed a cross objection in respect of his claim for the remaining half share in the house.
He made three unsuccessful attempts to execute the decree till the end of 1954.
The order of the appeal companyrt staying execution of the decree remained in force only for a limited period between January 31, 1958 and October 21, 1959.
Basing his claim on this deed of gift, Prakash Chandra, then a minor, by his fathers sister, as next friend, filed a civil suit on December 7, 1956, being No.
Hence this appeal with special leave.
Soon after the appellant was dragged to the companyrt by the respondents son in a suit wherein both the appellant and the respondent were parties although the respondent was exports.
Both the appeal and the cross objection were dismissed by the High Court on January 1, 1962.
Prem Raj instituted a civil suit No.
So the appeal companyrt issued an injunction restraining the appellant from executing his decree with respect to a half share in the house.
In Baldeo Singh supra an application for execution was made by Baldeo Singh, who was the assignee of the decreeholder an July 15, 1916.
75A of 1957 impleading the present appellant as the 1st defendant and his father, Ram Charan, as the 2nd defendant.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 3rd February, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Civil Misc.
About a year earlier, the property against which the decree was to be executed had been sold to Ram Swarup and Jai Dayal in execution of a simple money decree.
Ram Swarup and Jai Dayal instituted a suit for a declaration that the property purchased by them was number saleable in execution of the decree by the assignee, Baldeo Singh.
The sole argument of the appellant in the High Court was that S. 15 Limitation Act, 1908 hereinafter called the Act saved limitation.
The respondent objected to this application on the ground of limitation.
They also claimed an alternative relief that they were entitled to a prior charge of nearly Rs.
On August 16, 1951 Ram Charan mortgaged the house to Prem Raj the appellant .
It was, however, upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
So the application was dismissed as time barred.
Prakash Chandra claimed to be the sole owner of the suit property and described his father Ram Charan as a gambler and drunkard in the plaint in that suit.
Thereafter the suit was decreed in respect of the alternative relief only.
Prakash Chandra lodged an appeal against that judgment and decree and obtained stay of the execution of the aforesaid foreclosure decree in suit No.
Hence this appeal.
37A of 1959 was partly allowed by the First Additional District Judge, Chandwara, reversing the earlier decree of 25th November, 1958 and declaring that Prakash Chandra was entitled to the half share in the suit property.
Both the appeal and the cross objection were dismissed by the High Court on 1st January,1962.
He prayed in the suit for declaration that the preliminary and the final decree for foreclosure of 16th August, 1952 and 16th July, 1953, respectively in the civil suit No.
Having failed to obtain possession by means of usual civil process, the appellant applied to the companyrt for police aid but the prayer was rejected.
This suit was dis missed on 25th November, 1958.
Prem Raj obtained a preliminary decree for foreclosure on August 16, 1952 and also the final decree on July 16, 1955.
27A of 1952 on 31st December, 1958.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No,.
The fifth execution application was filed by the appellant on July 29, 1964 for possession over half of the house.
While this suit was pending, the assignees application for execution was dis missed.
Sava, the mother of Ram Charan, on the other hand, had executed a registered deed of gift of the suit property on 7th March, 1952, in favour of Prakash Chandra, son of Ram Charan, the respondent.
Prem Raj being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree lodged a second appeal No.
Baldeo Singh v. Ram Swarup 1 and Joshi Laxmiram Lallubhai Mehta Balashankar Veniram 2 .
Fortified by this gift, Prakash Chandra frustrated several attempts of the appellant to get possession of the house in execution of his decree.
was delivered by DWIVEDI, J. P. K. GOSWAMI, J. gave a dissenting Opinion.
The Judgment of P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.
Baldeo Singh filed an appeal from the decree.
Second Appeal No.
124 of 1966.
Kariya died in 1936 leaving behind him Sava and Ram Charan, his son.
2,000/ on the property.
27A of 1952 on the basis of the mortgage deed and obtained a preliminary decree for foreclosure on 16th August, 1952 and also the final decree on 16th July, 1953.
Turning back to the fourth execution application filed by the appellant, it was dismissed on June 23, 1956.
His appeal No.
N. Lokitr and A. G. Ratiaparkhi for the respondent.
A.I.R. 1935 Lahore 911.
The appellant filed a second appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the appeal companyrt.
16o7 of 1967.
217A of 1952 were number binding on him and that Prem Raj, the 1st defendant therein, be restrained through a perpetual injunction from taking possession of the house in dispute in execution of the aforesaid decree.
The objection was allowed and A.I.R. 1933 Madras 418.
In the meanwhile.on March 7,1952 Sava gifted the entire house to Prakash Chandra, son of Ram Charan,the respondent.
Prakash Chandra also filed a cross objection with regard to his claim for the other half of the suit property.
D. Sharma for the appellant.
DWIVEDI, J. Kariya and his wife Sava purchased the house in dispute by a registered deed on April 2, 1905.
He filed an appeal and obtained an order staying exe cution of the decree on December 31.
The decree was, inter alia, in the following form it is ordered and declared that the decrees in Civil Suit No.
He made the fourth attempt on April 25, 1956.
The suit was dismissed on November 25, 1958.
107 of 1960 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Shortly there after, on December 7, 1956, Prakash Chandra instituted a suit against the appellant and his father Ram Charan for a declaration that the preliminary and final decree for foreclosure in favour of the former were number binding on him and for a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from taking possession of the house in execution of the aforesaid decree.
The appeal companyrt partly allowed his appeal on October 21, 1959.
