It is undisputed that the whole of village Nandi had been granted as inam to the ancestor of Tuljaramarao and his descendants as per Sanad, Ext.
Purshottam Trikamdas, H. R. Gokhale and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
After his death his son appellant Appasaheb became the owner.
The appellants objected to the proposed attachment on various grounds.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, T. V. Tatachari and M. S. K. Sastri, for the appellants.
2 1944 I.L.R. 23 Pat.
80,000 against Tuljaram.
Their appeal was heard by Shah, J., who by his order dated September 23, 1953, set aside the order of attachment relying on the decision of Chagla, J., in second Appeal No.
The area reserved was about 35 acres and that he maintained about 12 bullocks and 8 servants.
The pro duce of the lands was also stored in the Wada.
50 of 1953 under the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree dated September 3, 1953, of the said High Court in First Appeal No.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 29, 1955, of the former Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
He was getting an income of Rs.
The other appellants are the widow and younger son of Tuljaram.
313 of 1943 against Tuljaramarao Narainrao Desai, hereinafter referred to as Tuljaramarao, to recover Rs.
He, however, gave numberdecision on the question whether s. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure gave protection to the Wada from attachment.
20,000 to Rs.
The Judgment of Jafer Imam and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.,
Subsequently, the High Court gave a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.
716 of 1957.
or 12 servants and the income is Rs.
54, and the Inam Patrak, Ext.
October 28.
The present appeal arises out of the proceedings for the execution of the decree started by the respondent against the appellants.
He sought the attachment, with a view to their subsequent sale, of certain properties including the Wada which is the subject matter of this appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He used to keep his cattle in the Wada where his servants also stayed and his agricultural implements were kept.
547 of 1952.
By 1949 both Tuljaram and Vithalrao had died.
On his death, his son the appellant Appasaheb became entitled to them.
Tuljaramarao used to supervise the agricultural operations and his servants.
Against the decision of Shah, J., there was an appeal under the Letters Patent of the High Court which was heard by a Division Bench.
25,000 a year from these lands.
50 of 1953, reversing the decision of Shah, J. and restoring the order passed by the executing companyrt which had been set aside by him.
Tuljaramarao having died his legal representatives, the present appellants, were brought on the record on September 21, 1944.
Sometime in 1943 one Vithalrao Thube obtained a decree for Rs.
Laxmanraos suit was decreed on December 20, 1943.
was delivered by Jafer Imam, J. A. K. Sarkar, J., delivered a separate judgment.
In April, 1949, Laxmanrao filed an application for the execution of the decree.
80,000 which had been borrowed by him from the plaintiff.
Appasaheb increased the acreage of the cultivation of the home farm to about 60 acres.
IMAM J. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
He has 14 bullocks and 10 1 1939 I.L.R. 21 Lah.23.
The executing companyrt on December 17, 1951, issued a warrant of attachment only against the Wada in question.
760 of 1942.
The appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court.
