1975 (12) TMI 179 - SC - Indian Laws

Enforcement of Property Charge Upheld by Supreme Court, Personal Decree Claim Rejected

Koksingh Versus Smt. Deokabai

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to allow enforcement of a charge on property held by the appellant as an occupancy tenant, rejecting ... - Issues:1. Enforcement of charge on property held by appellant as occupancy tenant.2. Competency of High Court to pass a decree for enforcement of the charge.3. Applicability of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code.4. Whether respondent's failure to appeal from trial court's decree bars High Court from passing a decree for enforcement of the charge.5. Crediting of payments made by the appellant.Analysis:1. The case involved a sale deed executed by Deojibhai in favor of the appellant, with a promise to pay the purchase amount by a specified date. The respondent, Deokabai, filed a suit claiming the unpaid amount with interest. The trial court granted a personal decree against the appellant but found the property to be part of his occupancy holding. The High Court, however, allowed the enforcement of the charge on the property, rejecting the personal decree claim due to limitation. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.2. The appellant argued that the property being his occupancy holding, a charge could not be enforced. However, the High Court held that the prohibition under the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920, had been repealed before the decree, allowing the enforcement of the charge. The Supreme Court concurred with this view, upholding the High Court's decision.3. The appellant contended that since the respondent did not appeal the trial court's decree, the High Court could not grant a decree for enforcement of the charge. However, the Supreme Court cited Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, which empowers the appellate court to pass any decree necessary, irrespective of whether a party has appealed, as long as it serves justice. The Court referred to precedents to support this interpretation.4. The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of the appellant's payments not being fully credited by the respondent. The Court noted the concurrent findings of the lower courts and found no merit in the appellant's claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to allow the enforcement of the charge on the property.5. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal provisions such as Order 41, Rule 33 in ensuring justice and equitable outcomes in civil matters. It underscored the appellate court's authority to rectify omissions or errors in lower court decrees, emphasizing the overarching goal of serving justice in legal proceedings.